On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: > Hello, > > > > > No, the ldap backend at the moment doesn't support anonnymous binds. Not > > sure if it is wanted.. > > > > Is it up to the developer to take such a decision ? ;) >
Well, let me put some perspective into that: We have made the table API "pluggable" precisely so that the question of what we want or not doesn't prevent people from writing/using their very own backends wether we like it or not. Anyone can write a ldap backend that supports <random feature> and there is everything in place for that person to use and share this backend and not have to rely on us to do anything. That being said, two things you should keep in mind: If you solve an issue in an elegant way, we will probably be ok to merge upstream. What we don't want is code that adds code to add code. Send us a diff to ldap that fixes a use-case, make that diff nice, it'll go in. As far as ldap is concerned, we wanted to verify that it was doable, but Eric, Charles and I don't use ldap. I made sure it worked on my box with a local ldap, but there is little will from me to work on that code that I don't use, unless ... 1- work makes it a top priority; 2- a sudden rise of user requests makes it a top priority; 3- someone/somecompany sponsors work in that area; 4- someone comes up with the code and we only have to review/test ;-) Other than these, we are pretty much going to work on other task that we prefer ;-) -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg -- You received this email because you are subscribed to mailing list: [email protected] To unsubscribe, send mail with subject: [[email protected]] unregister
