compiling against OpenLDAP 2.0.11
Konstantin.Chuguev at dante.org.uk
Mon Jul 9 15:50:42 CEST 2001
Sorry, I've been doing completely different things last few months. I could
read the mailings from the list, but couldn't react. I re-started my work on
python-ldap patches in June, just few days before I went on holiday... Now I'm
I seem to have missed some changes in python-ldap that made it incompatible
with OpenLDAPv1. I'm not quite sure about it. Am I right?
My patches (made against about a half year old CVSed python-ldap and CVSed
between v2.0.6 and 2.0.7 OpenLDAPv2) are not included into the current
python-ldap CVS, so I know it's not them that broke OpenLDAPv1 compatibility in
If the patches do break compatibily when applied on their own, then well, blame
myself for it, not python-ldap developers :-)
Michael Ströder wrote:
> David Leonard wrote:
> > the current status of the development tree seems to be:
> > * supporting OpenLDAP 2.* (but dropping support for earlier
> > versions)
Is it possible to keep support for both branches of OpenLDAP? I understand
Michael's concern about it. OpenLDAPv1 is still well developed version, it is
used by many people who don't need v2 functionality.
> I have to say that I'm feeling *very* unhappy about the current
> situation. I have absolutely no clue what to tell my users about how
> to install python-ldap.
> - There's no proper stable release since months although the CVS
> tree was pretty stable until a few weeks ago. I suggested to make a
> release before tinkering with the CVS version several times...
> - Undocumented OpenLDAP 2.0.x-related patches are floating around
> which actually break existing python-ldap applications.
I remember, one day I asked people if we could put the patches to CVS. I still
don't see any harm if we had _partial_ OpenLDAPv2 support in the main branch,
provided it doesn't break anything else. Partial, because there are some API
differences, so often you just can't use same functions for same operations in
OpenLDAPv1 and v2 cases (of course I mean the C API, but the current
python-ldap implementation generally inherits it).
We could even try to stick with a single python-ldap API, no matter whether
it's build with OpenLDAPv1 or v2. But in this case the current python-ldap API
should be changed. The examples are ldap_set_rebind_proc and SSL/TLS-related
But, in my area of interest (LDAPv3 referrals) API differences between
OpenLDAPv1 and v2 are hidden from a python-ldap user.
> I'd really prefer a stable version which builds against OpenLDAP
> 1.2.x, works rock-solid without memory leaks, do not core-dump and
> behaves as documented instead of OpenLDAP 2.0.x-patched version
> which break code and do not have any additional benefits.
Michael, if you are talking about my patches, I'd like to help. I made fresh
versions of them (built against the latest CVS version of python-ldap and
OpenLDAP-2.0.11. I tested them with the recent version of web2ldap. Referrals
work like a charm!
I haven't tested the patches against OpenLDAPv1, but I believe they shouldn't
pose any problems. If anybody is interested to check them, I can post them to
the mailing list.
* * Konstantin Chuguev - Application Engineer
* * Francis House, 112 Hills Road
* Cambridge CB2 1PQ, United Kingdom
D A N T E WWW: http://www.dante.net
More information about the python-ldap