TimurIzhbulatov at oilspace.com
Fri Apr 14 13:15:40 CEST 2006
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:47:05PM +0200, Michael Ströder wrote:
> Timur, thanks for your patch.
> 1. As long as returning a server-generated password is not implemented
> it does not make sense to make newpw optional and/or accept None as value.
Agree. I just blindly followed the RFC.
> 2. Personally I'd like avoid to turn arguments user,oldpw,newpw of
> passwd() into optional key-word arguments (and we can't do that for only
> user and oldpw, see 1.). I'd rather prefer the application developer to
> really know what he's doing. But I'm open to other opinions.
In this case the application developer won't be able to do some important
things. For example, changing other users's passwords will be impossible even if
tha application is bound with root DN.
And if you really don't like changing the passwd() method I suggest adding new
method or overriding the existing on in subclass. Of course, this implies my
patch for LDAPObject.c.
OILspace, 26 Leninskaya sloboda, bld. 2, 2nd floor, 115280 Moscow, Russia
P:+7 495 105 7245 + ext.205 F:+7 495 105 7246 E:TimurIzhbulatov at oilspace.com
Building Successful Supply Chains - One Solution At A Time.
More information about the python-ldap