dce/rpc "client" api

[Elrond]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:26:57PM +1000, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
[...]
> > I would like to know if the intention is to:
> >  - drop all ntdom code,
> >  - only implement the portion that allows file/printer sharing,
> >  - implement all ntdom code in place in TNG.
> 
> Sander, I know that you are Luke are deaply irritated that I have not
> just taken all your code as-is and put it into a production release of
> Samba. If you think for one moment that I don't want a production
> release with the ability to be a good domain controller then you are
> mistaken. It is my code too, you may not remember but I did quite a
> bit of early coding and bug fixing on the ntdom code and I have put a
> lot of effort into building appropriate pieces of infrastructure code
> etc.

Okay, since I'm also quite heavily involved with TNG, I
have to say something here.

I wasn't irritated, that you didn't take "our" code and
dropped it into HEAD.

This has several reasons:
- Dropping in the current code (especialy the server-side,
  non-(un)marshalling code) would introduce a big security
  hole into HEAD. This security hole does not exist in TNG,
  because it uses seperate daemons.

  This security hole is well known (at least to me) and I
  have some ideas for fixing them. (All on my "what I want
  to do next in TNG"-list)

- Since HEAD is more related to release/production-code, I
  respect/expect code-reviews, so simple drop-in isn't,
  what I expect.

- There's a whole bunch of code in TNG, that I currently
  don't like or which should be enhanced (including the
  above mentioned security issue). And I would like this
  code to be "fixed" before it gets into HEAD.


> When Luke first proposed his separate daemon architecture to me I told
> him that I didn't like it and that I would not accept it. Since then I
> have had the argument with him perhaps a dozen times on the phone, in
> person and in email. Each time going over the same ground and each
> time having to re-explain my reasons. Because I respect the effort he
> has put into this I have spent more time explaining things to him than
> I think I have ever put into explaining a coding decision before in my
> life.
> 
> I think the correct approach now is to:
> 
> 1) implement the shared object loading scheme I outlined in my email
>    yesterday

I have to note here, that I didn't get your mail about this
yesterday. I haven't found it in the archive either. Sander
was so kind to forward a copy.

I will write a seperate reply to it.


[... stuff about autogenerated code and sidlc ...]

We're currently planing some backend-library issues for
sidlc or more precisely for dce/rpc... maybe something to
show up on sidlc at samba.org.


> Of course, you guys don't have to go along with what I say. You are
> very welcome to do your own releases of the TNG code (as you have
> done) and thus fill the gap that so obviously needs
> filling. Alternatively you can do like Luke has done with Cliffs and
> start a new project. Either way I will try to support you and offer
> advice if you want it.

Big thanks for that support! :-)


> If, however, you want code to become part of the production releases
> of Samba that Jeremy and I do then _please_ have these arguments
> before the code is written. It is much less painful for everyone that
> way. It has happened far too often that code has been thrown away
> because of stupid things that could so easily have been prevented.


That's partly, what this discussion currently is all about.


> Cheers, Tridge


    Elrond