Oscar Figueiredo <Oscar.Figueiredo(a)di.epfl.ch> writes:
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com>
writes:
Ben> Again, please please follow standard conventions. The lower-level
Ben> functions should be called ldap-add, ldap-delete, etc. (Or even
Ben> better, use ldap-put, ldap-remove.) No -internal, -basic-, -1,
Ben> whatever. These are parallel to the database routines.
Ben> I'm still not completely convinced we need convenience wrappers.
Ben> The db interface doesn't have them, for example.
IIRC someone said on that list nobody actually uses the db interface.
But I was proved wrong. :)
That might explain why we don't need those wrappers. LDAP on the
other
hand is already used by three packages.
Ben> If you want them, though, call them something like
Ben> create-ldap-entry, or similar names -- i.e. longer, to convey that
Ben> they do more than you might expect.
Though I'm not convinced this renaming is good, I'll send the
corresponding patch, you probably know better than I what's good for
XEmacs. I still think someone used to LDAP will find its way more easily
through the current high-level API which reminds the traditional LDAP
command-line tools rather than through the naming you propose. Someone
not used to LDAP won't care that much.
I would agree that your high-level interface is akin to the command line
tools, and the ldap-*-internal routines are much closer to the actual C
LDAP API. And since we are using a 'real' programming language (just
assume for the moment :) we should encourage using the API-level functions,
which is what most LDAP programmers will be used to.
I'd say there are a lot less people writing shell scripts around the
'ldapmodify' and 'ldapsearch' commandline tools, especially since there
are
'real' Perl modules for ldap, etc.
-Bill P.