e: Problem to use VFS modules

[Andrew Tridgell]

> Sorry to butt in (I am sending this only to the list), but I was kind of
> hoping we will be using shared libraries passdb modules too (to support
> smbpasswd, tdb, ldap etc at the same time with a smb.conf parameter).

yes, we will probably use the same mechanism for loadable passdb
modules, but we always want module loading to be optional, and Samba
should be completely usable for systems that can't do module loading.

That means that the default passdb methods need to be built in, as
well as the most popular varients. I'm really expecting that more than
90% of all Samba sites will never load a module.

Module loading is really a way of us allowing people to do weird
stuff with Samba without polluting the main source tree. That means we
have less stuff to maintain as the add-ons need to been maintained by
their authors - we just provide an interface for them to be loaded.

It will also allow us to prototype stuff more easily, and I fully
expect the some ideas will start off as modules then be migrated to
being part of the core daemon once they are stable and prove
sufficiently useful.

btw, your message does confuse a couple of things. It is quite
possible to have multiple alternative subsystems (eg. ldap, tdb and
smbpasswd) with an ordering chosen in smb.conf without having loadable
modules. Look at the existing "name resolve order" option for an
example. What having loadable modules gives you is the ability to add
new functionality without changing the core source code or
recompiling.

Cheers, Tridge