Jeremy Allison jallison at
Tue Jan 26 01:24:12 GMT 1999

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> i can think of 2:
> 1) it's the way dce/rpc opengroup does it.  if it's good enough for them
> it's good enough for me.  just please don't put in a thread library,

This is *not* a good reason (100 million users use MS Windows, if
it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me...). Just remember
that that DCE/RPC is *not* a well designed RPC system. Study the
ONC code for a *simple*, *efficient*, easy to port RPC system. It
wasn't adopted due to political reasons (being designed by Sun)
but is *far* superior to DCE. ONC-RPC is used in thousands more
projects than DCE and has been ported to platforms such as DOS
and Novell for heavens sake. Think about the reasons for that.

If you don't know the ONC RPC code then I suggest you study
it. You won't want to go back to DCE.

> 2) samba source code, at 125,000 lines of code, is pretty daunting.
> 40,000 of those are dce/rpc client/server/parsing code.  where do you go
> to update the LSA code?  separate daemons with their own directories means
> that it's pretty clear that the 1,500 to 4,000 lines of code that deal
> with issue xyz are specific to that issue, and don't involve any other rpc
> services.

The directory structure in Samba is pretty clear about
which bits go where these days. If you want to work on
the DCE-RPC code you know where to find it :-).

> i am giving serious consideration to doing a proper "dce/rpc over tcp"
> set, using the opengroup's dce code.  however, dce-1.2.2 is massive and
> probably excessive.  the linux port took me three days to compile / set
> up, and it still doesn't work.

Indeed. Why do you think no-one with any sense uses DCE.
Samba needs it to be compatible with NT - but "thus far
and no further".


Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list