coding volunteers needed for msrpc server-side API conversion

Michael Stockman pgmtekn-micke at
Thu Jan 27 21:12:07 GMT 2000


lkcl wrote:
> the only reason i did that as a first  implementation was because it
> simple to do.  now we have to move on.

> well, the _real_ solution is to split client-side and server-side
> marhalling / unmarshalling.
> and i'm NOT doing that until we have some auto-generation mechanism,
> keep the two sets of marshalling code in sync.

I would like to agree with Elrond that the assymetry is bad. Actually
I don't like functions that allocate resources very much unless there
is a free function associated: malloc / strdup => free, make_XXX =>
free_XXX, fopen => fclose etc.

In regards to duping [in] parameters, that is (must be) okay if the
use of them may be longer lived than the parameters themselves. If we
store pointers on the stack from a calling function and the function
goes out of scope (returning the structure we just made), then our
pointer is lethal.

My quetions is, though, would it not be better to invent a auto
generation system (which I also have had some very loose thoughs
about) right away, rather that redoing those functions and then invent
an auto generation system and redo them once again?

Best regards
  Michael Stockman
  pgmtekn-micke at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list