[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: delay slap_sasl_destroy()

To: "'Kurt D. Zeilenga'" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>, <ando@sys-net.it>
Subject: RE: delay slap_sasl_destroy()
From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:55:04 -0700
Cc: <openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <6.0.1.1.0.20040518180210.02c6f9f8@127.0.0.1>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Kurt  D. Zeilenga

> At 04:20 PM 5/14/2004, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> >would it be a problem if I delay slap_sasl_destroy() right after
> >slap_destroy(), or at least inside it but right after the backends
> >have been destroyed?
> 
> Seems okay.  Anyone see any problems with this change?
 
Looks fine to me.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support

References:
- Re: delay slap_sasl_destroy()
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: delay slap_sasl_destroy()
Next by Date: Call for Participation - OpenLDAP Developers' Day/San Diego - 6 August 2004
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread