dce/rpc "client" api
Cole, Timothy D.
timothy_d_cole at md.northgrum.com
Thu Aug 24 16:13:44 GMT 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Allison [SMTP:jeremy at valinux.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 15:47
> To: Cole, Timothy D.
> Cc: 'Gerald Carter'; 'samba-technical at samba.org'; 'lkcl at samba.org'
> Subject: Re: dce/rpc "client" api
>
> "Cole, Timothy D." wrote:
> >
> > There are a lot more things you can do with DCE/RPC and NT than
> just
> > serving files/printers and providing domain authentication, and Samba
> isn't
> > going to be offering any of them.
>
> Yet. And anyway, there are perfectly good DCE/RPC implementations
> available for UNIX already, over TCP transport.
>
Hrm. Okay. I didn't think about that.
Can everything that uses DCE/RPC over SMB be made to use DCE/RPC
over TCP instead?
> Very few apps use DCE - ask yourself why ?
>
I would expect a _lot_ of NT apps that require that sort of thing
use MSRPC...
[ note that my current understanding is that MSRPC is essentially a
specific application of DCE/RPC, or at least that it requires it ... I've
been using them interchangably in this context. If that's wrong, it
explains my weird response... ]
> > I can imagine someone saying "Samba is crap" because, for
> example,
> > they couldn't run a hypothetical GPLed Exchange clone together with
> Samba,
> > just becase Samba is sitting on DCE/RPC over SMB and not sharing.
>
> I can't - because to implement a hypothetical GPLed Exchange
> clone they'll probably have re-used lots of the Samba DCE
> code and we'll be co-operating with them and loading their
> .so library in order to pass messages to them over the SMB
> transport :-).
>
Hrm, I admittedly hadn't really thought about it in terms of code
reuse before.
Since you put it this way, _if_ this happened in the future,
wouldn't it be better (at that point) to break out the common functionality
in a separate library/service that both Samba and the other software use?
Unless I'm gravely misunderstanding you, what you describe seems
kind of a backwards way of achieve code reuse. Copying-and-pasting code, I
mean, and then loading part of the app in-process in Samba to do the
remainder...
> Call me when you've got a *real* product with such a complaint,
> not a hypothetical one.
>
> :-).
>
That's fair. Original complaint withdrawn.
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list