jlittle at ee.stanford.edu
Tue Nov 13 19:50:29 CET 2001
I just wanted to butt in with my opinion here.
It seems that to date, the python-ldap API has mirrored that of the
c-API, but also provided an LDAP object wrapper.
I think is correct as well as ideal for us to support both the
set_option() method in the direct API, but for object-oriented purposes
provide an internal mechanism that calls the set_option using set_attr
and get_attr syntax. Those who will use the LDAPObject and similar
mentality will appreciate the latter, and I feel it doesn't confuse
things if those methods are documented as object methods.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 05:01 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
> Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:13:54PM +1000, David Leonard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Jacek Konieczny typed thusly:
>>>> The two interfaces can coexist.
>>> um, i'd like to avoid too many ways of doing the same thing.. it
>>> leads to
>>> confusion... so, just one way or the other thanks :)
>> In this case IMHO set_option() seems more reasonable.
> Go for it.
>> But it will break
>> backward compatibility (for those options which are already implemented
>> as attributes).
> Backward compability to python-ldap with OpenLDAP 1 libs regarding
> options was broken with OpenLDAP 2 patches anyway. I don't mind.
>> I won't touch __setattr__() and set_option() of LDAPObject until we
>> decide on some solution.
> Go for set_option() since the C module part should map OpenLDAP 2
> API more or less directly.
> Ciao, Michael.
More information about the python-ldap