Rant re mutation [Was libsmbclient functionality addition]

[David Collier-Brown]

Richard Sharpe wrote:
> The problem I have here is that we do not seem to have asked our user base
> what they want.
> 
> I can appreciate the need for changes, as I need them myself, but
> maintaining backward compatibility may be something that is important,
> given that libsmbclient is being shipped with a number of Linux distros
> now.

	[Time for my standard Multics rant again, suitably
	bowdlerized...]

	I recommend shipping a "filter" library implementing the
	existing libsmbclient calls without the handles,
	but implemented in terms of calls to the new ones,
	with a hidden handle.

	Call this libsmbclient.so.1, and the one with the
	new calls libsmbclient.so.2

	Ensure both are built and installed by default,
	and warn people that .so.1 will be dropped from
	maintenance after .2 stabilizes.  Anyone needing
	backwards compatibility will get it, but will
	also get to accept the cost of maintaining the
	filter library themselves.

--dave
[On Multics, if you changed an interface, you had to change the
version number and write functions to update and downdate from
the immediately previous versions. They used this to change
stuff on the fly, without buggering up users or rebooting]
-- 
David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify 
Performance & Engineering      | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering, |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849                 | davecb at canada.sun.com