Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99663
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jakub.php@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <25e41de7-9545-d6f5-e8f8-46c47392ab71@heigl.org>
References: <8613502.pYZHiygsMh@mcmic-probook> <25e41de7-9545-d6f5-e8f8-46c47392ab71@heigl.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:11:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAG5WOoqw3T5cxBzPo_+SMSnsmsosrgJmHSyC3EuGf-rSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=B4me_Chilliet?= <come@opensides.be>, 
	php-internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c035f44e0245f0553091c63"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP-LDAP EXOP support
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--94eb2c035f44e0245f0553091c63
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Heigl <andreas@heigl.org> wrote:

> Hi C=C3=B4me.
>
>
> Am 26.06.17 um 11:34 schrieb C=C3=B4me Chilliet:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Some time ago, someone said on the tracker that there was an up to date
> patch for php-ldap exop and controls: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?
> id=3D69445
> > It appeared the code was in fact not up to date, at least not for PHP7.
> >
> > But it was enough to make me try again to work from there to add EXOP
> support to PHP-LDAP, so I extracted the part about EXOP from the patch an=
d
> worked from there to have something working with current master.
> > The result is there for now: https://github.com/MCMic/php-
> src/tree/ldap_exop
>
> Thanks for that work!
> >
> > At least the methods for passwd and whoami EXOPs are working fine.
> >
> > Which PHP release should a change like that target?
>
> The first possible release IMHO would be PHP.Next (sadly=E2=80=A6), as th=
ere's
> already been a feature-freeze for PHP 7.2=E2=80=A6
> While that means that we have to wait another year until that feature
> comes into production it also means that we might be able to have a more
> conscise exop-handling for ldap by then=E2=80=A6
> > Do I need to open an RFC for these methods?
>
> As we add functionality to the language we should have one=E2=80=A6 shoul=
dn't we?
>

I don't think it is necessary to have RFC for such specific functions. We
added recently similar thing to OpenSSL (openssl_pkcs7_read) - similar in a
way that probably only few people on this list care about it. :) The thing
is that the RFC for such functionality usually won't bring much attention
and people will usually accept it anyway if there are no objection before
that. It's much better to just introduce functionality and wait a week or
so if anyone has an objection. If there is no objection, then I believe it
should be fine to merge.

Cheers

Jakub

--94eb2c035f44e0245f0553091c63--