[SSSD] [PATCHES][PRELIMINARY] Support for multiple LDAP search bases

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Mon Sep 26 15:02:30 UTC 2011


> On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:40 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:10 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > > Patch 0004: Add parser for multiple search bases
> > > > > As discussed on the list, this will the ldap_*_search_base options
> > > > > in the form of:
> > > > > search_base[?scope?[filter][?search_base?scope?[filter]]*]
> > > > > This is backwards-compatible (just use a search base)
> > > > 
> > > > Why haven't you used the for cycle to parse search bases? Personally
> > > > I'd prefer it that way, but I guess it is nothing wrong to do it
> > > > this way either. Other than that the patch is fine.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand the question. Could you explain?
> > 
> > Sorry, I didn't notice. This was only my note without any explanation.
> > What I thought is that on ldap_common.c:253, there is a block of code
> > handling search bases in a cycle. I just think that we should either use
> > the cycle to do both setting and parsing or neither. But as I wrote
> > before, this is just cosmetic issue.
> 
> I didn't do it in the loop because it would have required an annoying
> switch statement to handle which of the opts->*_search_bases values to
> assign to. I figured it read better just having them in order
> afterwards.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of that loop to begin with, but I'm not sure there's
> any value to dismantling it either.

Ok, as I stated before, I have no problem with this, just a cosmetic thing.

I'm recompiling SSSD to run some tests, but consider all patches to be ACKed.


Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20110926/1af9378a/attachment.sig>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list