Re: [HACKERS] LDAP auth

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LDAP auth
Date: 2006-03-06 08:30:45
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA350C3@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

> > > Was there ever a decision in "the libcurl thread"?
> >
> > No, not yet.
> >
> > Personally I'm unconvinced that we should depend on
> libcurl: if it's
> > going to use openldap to do LDAP work, then the only good reason to
> > use libcurl rather than openldap directly is if there's some
>
> > clear use-case for libcurl's other features. Which no one had
> presented AFAIR. I'm
> > still willing to be convinced though.
>
> I'm almost done with implementing a patch that recognizes
> LDAP URLs in pg_services.conf and queries an LDAP server for
> a connection option string.
>
> Currently I'm coding against libldap, and I intend to submit
> the patch that way. If there are loud calls for another
> library, I think I could adapt the code without much hassle.
>
> The only other protocol I can think of that might make sense
> is HTTP, but I personally have never heard of a web server
> employed that way.

If you haven't already, look at the ldap auth patch in the queue for
some win32 specific issues - we do not want to rely on OpenLDAP on
windows, since there is a builtin version that's almost the same (close
enough).

(BTW, web servers are employed for *anything* these days...)

//Magnus

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2006-03-06 08:54:21 Re: LDAP auth
Previous Message Albe Laurenz 2006-03-06 08:00:47 Re: [HACKERS] LDAP auth