Re: LDAP_DEPRECATED in 2.3.X

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 11:55 PM 10/18/2005, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
>On Tuesday 18 October 2005 19:10, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>> At 07:43 AM 10/18/2005, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >The 2.3 releases don't define LDAP_DEPRECATED anymore. This causes
>> > problems with a lot of non-OpenLDAP software and I expect that many
>> > users of libldap are not too happy about that especially because
>> > the man-pages for many of the non-deprecated function are missing
>> > or just refer to the deprecated calls (in fact I wonder why nobody
>> > has complained here yet :) ).
>>
>> Maybe because defining -DLDAP_DEPRECATED in software that uses
>> deprecated interfaces is not that big of a deal.
>I agree, but it was my understanding that the deprecated functions might 
>be removed at sometime in the future. Are there any plans to do that?

No plans.  We tend to only remove code if and when
it fall into disrepair.

>> ldap_init: use ldap_initialize(3) instead.  Aside from support
>> for ldaps:// and ldapi://, ldap_initialize(3), unlike ldap_init(3),
>> returns an indication of the nature of any error directly.
>>
>> ldap_values_free(3): use of character strings for values is
>> deprecated as their use is quite bug prone as zero-valued
>> octets are legal in many LDAP syntaxes.  Note that NUL (U+0000)
>> is a Unicode character.  Bervals should be used instead (and,
>> hence, ldap_value_len_free(3)).
>Ok, but according to the C-API, stuff like referralsp (returned by 
>ldap_parse_result) which is still char** and not Berval should freed 
>using ldap_values_free. Which (non-deprecated) function should to be 
>used for this now. I've been using ber_memvfree lately, is that 
>correct? 

ldap_memvfree(3) would be a better choice as its
in -lldap, but ber_memvfree(3) is equivalent.

Kurt