X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=NCiSrvhq/GX9gZL5
	KIvjPZ3IJGyOyY5YM2IGbOypiy28b91cG+T0zHG3n2xR0legoS6y0bZ5SyBMogia
	DHAe+3d+5UwJ/58f493XhNS2av4bM6/iW5Jg545AO+PLAg6Qj2qUdSFKLMBkmA65
	7vPGa2369bzQtv2H0AkgzrC/vb8=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=oKMuMyjVBW7aQ1+KnAMPG7
	QNGPU=; b=AXtcvcWJjM4b7MLuJXzYvV1itFRhXzFh0Ye3/a8jhyrID05/D55wyt
	C0gHcft1NZ3g6Z8l9+VpKI45W9C4qskaw/d+VLqc0fM5DeIvFStYcAMVii9JoKV4
	fzIQ+PsXzprflHbYdaQAb0Q7aMKwsJryy96NQlNn4Ihr8sbPco/VI=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	smtpback.ht-systems.ru
Date:	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:14:56 +0400
From:	Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To:	Andrey Repin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID:	<1334069775.20140207221456@mtu-net.ru>
To:	Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
In-Reply-To:	<52F51744.3090004@etr-usa.com>
References:	<52F339CA DOT 5070305 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206090117 DOT GD2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F361C5 DOT 3000807 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206141321 DOT GI2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F40208 DOT 5030901 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140207094917 DOT GN2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <449939081 DOT 20140207164918 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <52F51744 DOT 3090004 AT etr-usa DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Greetings, Warren Young!

>> LDAP IS simple.

> Anything tied to a PKI is going to be pretty complex, no matter how 
> simple the underlying tech is.

> Then there's the fact that LDAP derives from X.500, a prototypically 
> overengineered OSI emission.  DC=my,DC=sub,DC=domain,DC=com.  P'tui!

Well, well, mom said spitting is not nice.
I agree that certain parts of specification look weird for untrained eye, but
being properly explained, they make sense.
Not to mention, this all could be wrapped up by a proper interface.

>> It's a shame it is so little known outside specific circles.

> I blame the books.

I concur. Was a long time since I started grasping it, but then it was
breakthrough. Much like regexps.

> Several years ago, I bought most of what was available, since we needed 
> to do user authentication against an existing AD system in a custom 
> software system, to avoid parallel user management.

> The most useful book I found was "LDAP: Programming Directory-Enabled 
> Applications with Lightweight Directory Access Protocol", by Howes and 
> Smith, since it covers things from the C API level upward.  Most other 
> LDAP books either don't cover the programming level at all, or mention 
> it briefly on their way down from the directory service level.

I find most books problematic to understand, because they talk too much about
implementation, and too little about actual application of the system in real
world.
As an example: I have little knowledge in TCP/IP internal structure, this
doesn't stop me from troubleshooting network issues... because it is not
really necessary in 90% of real situations. The 90% of the rest is covered by
a quick googling and little extrapolation. The 1% that is left falls under
"Professionalism: An ability to make right decisions in a situation that never
happen again in your life."
Same applies to LDAP. People spoil their \m/ \m/ about how awesome they are
using such awesome technology, but offering little real help.

> It's not even the case that all the teaching material has moved online.
>   The OpenLDAP programming manual is a pile of man pages.[2]  Man pages 
> are great, but go toss a neophyte into that pile and see if she doesn't 
> come out welted, weary and wincing.

Same for ISC-DHCP... :/ The WORST documentation support for (probably) the
MOST used DHCP server.

> Given this, it's no wonder those who can write LDAP based software are 
> seen as a kind of elite.  Acquiring a working knowledge of LDAP 
> programming is akin to a baleen whale feeding itself.

Programming anything is really simple. Or I find it really simple. If you know
how to use it, you can code it. If you don't know how to use it... You are
coding a monster noone will be able to use.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru) 07.02.2014, <22:02>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -