possible bug in ldb ?

Simo Sorce idra at samba.org
Mon Sep 19 05:23:05 GMT 2005

On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 11:17 +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> Simo,
>  > show we just use an int for return codes or do you think somethin like
>  > NT status codes is better? I would go for normal integers as that keeps
>  > ldb easier for other to be reused.
> I don't want the API to move too far away from the ldap API. It
> doesn't need to be identical to ldap, but I want it to be easy to
> understand for people used to ldap.
> So I guess this means we should define LDB_SUCCESS,
> values, and return that. 

I've already started on this track after some thinking.
See my recent commits. I haven't used an enum, just defines.

> I certainly don't think NTSTATUS values would be appropriate. It would
> be too artificial to try to make up a sane mapping between the errors
> ldb generates and NT status codes.

yeah I'm for avoiding NTSTATUS too.

> After we start filling in the error code handling, we then need to
> correctly map them into the ldap server, so other ldap clients get the
> right error.

yes, I will slowly do that.


Simo Sorce    -  idra at samba.org
Samba Team    -  http://www.samba.org
Italian Site  -  http://samba.xsec.it

More information about the samba-technical mailing list