Re: [21.2] LDAP add and delete functions + interrupt fixes
>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes:
> Perhaps, but I think that the code to do anything ldap-ish would
> still look very ldap-ish as opposed to abstract-database-ish.
Hrvoje> I agree with Bill. Abstract interfaces are a nice thing up to a
Hrvoje> point, i.e. as long as they serve to us and not the other way around.
Hrvoje> If LDAP serves a purpose totally different than a flat database, it's
Hrvoje> quite fine to have a different interface for the two.
Just to add my 2 cts, I also like abstraction and uniform interfaces (after all
EUDC is a simple attempt at that) but I agree 200% with Bill and Hrvoje. The
LDAP APIs are still evolving, adhering to them is the simple way to go. Even
if we devised a good interface above the current API now, nothing guarantees we
could easily fit forthcoming evolutions into it. I, for one, won't go that way
but I won't discourage anyone that would like to implement such an interface.
Oscar
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 261 bytes)