Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> Am 08.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Michael Ströder <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >> >> Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>>> Am 19.02.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Howard Chu <email@example.com>: >>>>> Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have made some enhancements to back-sock to use JSON for the passed data and JSON-RPC >>>>> to map LDAP calls to method invocations. >>>> >>>> my initial reaction: the current format is just a tweaked LDIF. LDIF itself is still a more >>>> compact format than JSON. I personally am opposed to adding any JSON dependencies to our >>>> code base. Anyone else have an opinion? >>> >>> Well, of course you are right that the LDAP presentation is more efficient. >>> However I think from a client perspective it would be easier not to deal >>> with LDIF, especially as you can choose a JSON-RPC server suitable for your >>> needs and have the data already available for the function and concentrate >>> on implementing the functionality: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON-RPC#Implementations >> >> You assume that many people want to do JSON-RPC. IMHO that's only your >> specific need. And it shouldn't be too hard for you to write an external >> generic back-sock listener which translates this custom LDIF to JSON and >> provide it as separate open source project. > > I would happily do that, however I need some extra fields to be passed. It seems we're getting to the interesting part. I'd also like to see back-sock used as overlay to pipe requests and responses through an external process. E.g. I'd like to rewrite filters based on authz-DN or similar but let slapd itself process the (modified) request. Ciao, Michael.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature