ANNC and query: ldapmodule-1.10a3-patched RPMs available

Joe Little jlittle at
Wed May 9 03:11:06 CEST 2001

Comments are below

On Tuesday, May 8, 2001, at 06:01  PM, David Leonard wrote:

>>   (in either redhat6.2/RPMS or the like you
>> find it)
> ok to link to this from the 'download' page?

Link all you want :)

> I've used swig before, and ended up writing such python-specific code
> that swig was becoming a nusiance. You may have different experience,
> or maybe swig has gotten better.

It would appear that both SWIG and Zope's python-scripting have gotten 
better. The key definitely is making ldap OO enough...

> the point of using swig is to make it accessible in more scripting 
> languages
> than just python.. which is admittedly a nice thing. it means that more
> thought has to be put into the api.
>> Is python-ldap basically abandon-ware at this point? Being in "a3" for
>> about a year is pretty "abandoned" to me.
> yes its pretty close to abandonware :)
> with openldap2 a rewrite is a good idea. i personally just don't have
> much time nor motivation to do it all again. that's why its in 
> sourceforge :)
> the other thing that i do not track, but that stroeder seems to, is what
> o-o apis are emerging for ldap. there is the java-ldap ietf draft, there
> is also perl's (ugly imho).

Indeed. I know one of the maintainers of the PerLDAP stuff. Its not very 
pretty, but even the python-ldap code has gotten less pretty than I'd 
like. I definitely want to keep away from the PerLDAP api which doesn't 
provide much abstraction or object-orientation (good, standard 

> i feel its important to discuss how you'd like to see yourself 
> interacting
> with ldap through python. there have been some past emails containing my
> suggestions and fog has some work towards a high level X.500 interface
> for python.

I'll try and look into it. Any specific time period off hand?

> on the other hand, just getting something to work with openldap2 via 
> swig
> would make progress and maybe that's all that you and other people
> really need?

Full-featured would be great, but you are correct that there are new 
requirements and possibly a secure-access only API may be sufficient (as 
in more LDAP support and less LBER requirements).

> go for it.
> d
> On Tue, 8 May 2001, Joe Little typed thusly:
>> Well, OpenLDAP feature sets do trully need to be supported, since I'll
>> be managing certificates and require TLS and such. Lovely that. So I
>> will either need to figure out how to fix python-ldap for modern ldap
>> libraries (OpenLDAP, mozilla, etc), or redo it completely. Again the
>> SWIG approach may be necessary. What are list member preferences at 
>> this
>> stage. I was not utterly thrilled when I glanced at the current code
>> base. Associated with the swig approach, I may only need specific
>> functions to access LDAP and thus need only build a new simplified API
>> that hides c-specific calls to do the rest.
> --
> David Leonard                           David.Leonard at
> Dept of Comp. Sci. and Elec. Engg   _   Room:78-640  Ph:+61 7 336 51187
> The University of Queensland       |+|  
> QLD 4072  AUSTRALIA               ~` '~ 
> B73CD65FBEF4C089B79A8EBADF1A932F13EA0FC8
> Why are apartments so close together?

More information about the python-ldap mailing list