[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

To: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>, "OpenLDAP-devel@openldap.org" <OpenLDAP-devel@openldap.org>
Subject: Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?
From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:31:34 +0000
In-reply-to: <46323052-463f-2cc0-ea3c-90a3ac8ef89a@stroeder.com>
References: <b4f6215d-c92e-78fb-a79f-69781377a979@symas.com> <46323052-463f-2cc0-ea3c-90a3ac8ef89a@stroeder.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 SeaMonkey/2.53

Michael Ströder wrote:
> On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
>> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which means that now
>> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be linked with the
>> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really important to have a single-threaded
>> LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the standard library?
> 
> Mainstream Linux distributions started to remove libldap anyway.
> So +1 to abandon it.

I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name. We can completely drop the "libldap_r" name
or just keep it as a symlink for a while, removing it after a year or so.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?
  - From: Ryan Tandy <ryan@nardis.ca>
- Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?
  - From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

References:
- libldap vs libldap_r ?
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?
  - From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>

Prev by Date: Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?
Next by Date: Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread