Re: LDAP extended and revamped
Oscar Figueiredo writes:
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Pluim
<rpluim(a)bigfoot.com> writes:
Robert> Hrvoje Niksic writes:
>> Oscar Figueiredo <Oscar.Figueiredo(a)di.epfl.ch> writes:
>>
>> > *** IMPORTANT NOTE ***
>> > Due to the function renaming, this patch introduces an incompatible
>> > change that breaks the packages using the current LDAP API, most
>> > notably EUDC and W3.
>>
>> Renaming doesn't necessarily entail breaking backward compatibility.
>> If you want to be kind to your users, define functions with old names
>> that do nothing except call the new functions.
Robert> Wouldn't define-{obsolete,compatible}-function-alias be better here?
Robert> Or are they intended only for 'core' emacs functions?
Of course I've been concerned by this problem. But I don't
know what to do for the particular case of ldap-search.
Currently ldap-search is the name of the high-level search
function (vs. ldap-search-internal which is the low-level
function). But according to the recent discussion on the
subject, what we want is the low-level function to be called
ldap-search and the high-level one called something else (my
patch proposes ldap-search-entries).
I'm in favor of keeping compatibility with the old interface
and, if necessary, accepting some awkwardness in the new names.
But given that low level and high level search functions take
different parameters, ldap-search could be smart and call the
high level function if it looks like that's what the application
wants. So maybe the problem can be avoided.