rfc:ldap_exop

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
rfc:ldap_exop [2017/06/26 15:20] mcmicrfc:ldap_exop [2017/06/29 14:24] mcmic
Line 29: Line 29:
 This RFC also wish to introduce helper functions for common EXOP usage: This RFC also wish to introduce helper functions for common EXOP usage:
 <code php> <code php>
-mixed ldap_exop_whoami(resource $link)+bool ldap_exop_whoami(resource $link, string &$result)
 bool ldap_exop_passwd(resource $link, string $user, string $oldpw, string $newpw [, string &$genpw]) bool ldap_exop_passwd(resource $link, string $user, string $oldpw, string $newpw [, string &$genpw])
 </code> </code>
Line 35: Line 35:
 The second one would call passwd EXOP and return TRUE or FALSE upon failure. If $newpw is empty, $genpw will be filled with the generated password for the user. If $user is empty, it affects the bound user. The second one would call passwd EXOP and return TRUE or FALSE upon failure. If $newpw is empty, $genpw will be filled with the generated password for the user. If $user is empty, it affects the bound user.
  
-The author of the original patch stated that technically ldap_start_tls is an exop helper and therefore could be renamed ldap_exop_start_tls. We fill this would be a useless BC.+The author of the original patch stated that technically ldap_start_tls is an exop helper and therefore could be renamed ldap_exop_start_tls. We feel this would be a useless BC.
  
-The original patch (and current code) provided a possibility to get a result object from helpers as well, and provided ldap_parse_exop_* helpers to parse the result objects from these operations. We fill this is too complex and does not add anything to the RFC so we intend to leave them out.+The original patch (and current code) provided a possibility to get a result object from helpers as well, and provided ldap_parse_exop_* helpers to parse the result objects from these operations. We feel this is too complex and does not add anything to the RFC so we intend to leave them out.
  
 ===== Examples ===== ===== Examples =====
Line 73: Line 73:
  
 ===== Proposed PHP Version(s) ===== ===== Proposed PHP Version(s) =====
-7.2 if possible, 7.3/8 otherwise+Next PHP 7.x release
  
 ===== RFC Impact ===== ===== RFC Impact =====
Line 92: Line 92:
 ===== Open Issues ===== ===== Open Issues =====
   - Should the function names contain the word "exop" or is it a technical detail which should be hidden from the developer?   - Should the function names contain the word "exop" or is it a technical detail which should be hidden from the developer?
-  - Should we include a constant for LDAP_EXOP_REFRESH, for the sake of completeness, even if this EXOP won’t be used by PHP code as all PHP LDAP operations are synchrone (in the current code state).+  - Should we include a constant for LDAP_EXOP_CANCEL, for the sake of completeness, even if this EXOP won’t be used by PHP code as all PHP LDAP operations are synchrone (in the current code state).
   - Should helper functions return a mixed, or a boolean and have an out parameter? ("mixed ldap_exop_whoami($link)" vs "bool ldap_exop_whoami($link, &$result)")   - Should helper functions return a mixed, or a boolean and have an out parameter? ("mixed ldap_exop_whoami($link)" vs "bool ldap_exop_whoami($link, &$result)")
   - How would someone go about generating the needed ber-encoded data to pass ldap_exop in PHP? Should this RFC also define functions to handle ber-encoded data?   - How would someone go about generating the needed ber-encoded data to pass ldap_exop in PHP? Should this RFC also define functions to handle ber-encoded data?
 +  - The $retoid field seems useless for all EXOPs listed in the constant section, they either leave it empty or fill it with the same value as $reqoid. So maybe this field should be moved to the last position to be easily omitted. But this may result in a less natural order: //reqoid, reqdata, retdata, retoid// (though most of the time it will be //reqoid, reqdata, retdata//).
 +  - How should error handling works? Original patch throws E_WARNING for all errors and failures, which seems a bad idea. Maybe filling the error so that error_get_last() gives the right information when a function of this RFC returns FALSE would be enough? Or should be uses exceptions?
  
 ===== Unaffected PHP Functionality ===== ===== Unaffected PHP Functionality =====
rfc/ldap_exop.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1