dce/rpc "client" api
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at samba.org
Fri Aug 25 05:11:12 GMT 2000
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, 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.
ur, noooo, according to the "leaders of the samba development", there will
be _no_ convenient way to interoperate with samba's dce/rpc-based
> > And anyway, there are perfectly good DCE/RPC implementations
> > available for UNIX already, over TCP transport.
[weeellll... those are not fully MS-compatible. they do not support,
afaik, wchar_t as strings (for unicode) or encapsulated unions or
> 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?
if the transport is available [in the dce/rpc server], then it can be
"dynamically registered" by a service to accept incoming connections on
only nt is capable of doing this -- at the moment.
> > Very few apps use DCE - ask yourself why ?
> I would expect a _lot_ of NT apps that require that sort of thing
> use MSRPC...
including all DCOM-based ones.
> [ 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... ]
MSRPC is a superset of DCE/RPC. DCE/RPC was developed and has pretty much
stagnated for at least... ten years. MSRPC is a main-stream, critical
component of NT, and is doing a pretty good job [*if* used properly,
hint-hint to the inexperienced people who developed spoolss.idl, you
messed up \PIPE\spoolss pretty badly, it's _majorly_ inefficient :)]
> 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
> > Call me when you've got a *real* product with such a complaint,
> > not a hypothetical one.
> > :-).
> That's fair. Original complaint withdrawn.
hm, by you, it is, because you're not the one preparing the groundwork to
write such a Real Product: no offense intended or implied, tim.
jeremy's attitude is just downright unhelpful. it implies that without a
finished product, the cooperation and code reuse should not even be
CONSIDERED. well, i am sorry to say this, but fuck you too.
More information about the samba-technical