Re: LDAP extended and revamped

Kyle> I'm in favor of keeping compatibility with the old interface Kyle> and, if necessary, accepting some awkwardness in the new names. Kyle> But given that low level and high level search functions take Kyle> different parameters, ldap-search could be smart and call the Kyle> high level function if it looks like that's what the application Kyle> wants. So maybe the problem can be avoided. I can name the low-level search function ldap-search1 or something and define a new wrapper ldap-search that calls either ldap-search1 or ldap-search-entries depending on the type of the first parameter (ldapp or not). But I wonder if it's really worth cluttering the code with such a compatibility hack when nobody will actually need it as soon as EUDC an W3 are updated. I agree compatibility *is* a MUST for features that are widely used. I believe the LDAP API currently is not. Oscar