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


Well, the reason I put everything marked "deprecated" behind
LDAP_DEPRECATED instead of just a few things was to get some
input on precisely what should and shouldn't be behind the
LDAP_DEPRECATED flag and to turn the discussion around a bit.
I that is, I rather have API users make arguments as to why
this or that should not be behind LDAP_DEPRECATED instead of
having API maintainers make arguments as why this or that
should be behind LDAP_DEPRECATED.  It should be clear that
maintainers don't like maintaining more than they have to.

(I was also curious to how long it would take before some
bitched.  Sometimes I wonder how much "real" testing goes
on when requested. :-)

At 10:24 AM 12/17/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Why are perfectly good functions like ldap_add() and
>ldap_unbind() deprecated in favour of the _ext() functions?
>I don't want to have to pass two extra NULL parameters all
>over the place for controls I never use.

I understand the convenience of such routines, however,
what about the ambiguity and compatibility of some
of these _ext'less routines.  In particular, the
ldap_modrdn set?

>When you talked about LDAP_DEPRECATED some days ago, I
>thought you meant ldap_perror(), ldap_bind() & a few others.
>_That_ sounded good.