CVS update: tng/source/passdb

Andrew Tridgell tridge at
Mon Jan 7 15:17:01 GMT 2002


I would have thought you'd eventually get sick of raking over these
old coals. I know that I'm sick of explaining it to you for the
hundredth time.

Here goes for the 101st ...

>  i've already described such a viable method.  unfortunately
>  the people you work with are too arrogant and too stupid to
>  accept anything that comes from me, and too short-sighted
>  and cock-sure of their own technical superiority
>  to accept any solution that is not "perfect".

no, you offered a solution, I pointed out flaws in it and proposed an
alternative. That's the way software works. Yelling and swearing
doesn't help.

>  loadable module support is _not_ the way to do it.

For those who have only just joined us the loadable module proposal
goes like this:

- allow smbd to load arbitrary .so module for any pipe
- a single .so can handle multiple pipes 
- the .so can have its own parameters in smb.conf

That's the basic infrastructure. Then to allow compatibility with
existing TNG pipes I suggested we have a single simple "glue" module
that is loaded into smbd and interfaces to the existing TNG pipes
interface. So you might have something like:

pipe handler = *

(meaning "for pipes that match the name * use")

or we could use symlinks in a pipe directory or whatever.

>  "controlled" from HEAD is not the way to do it.

well, if head is running then the packets will be going via smbd
code. No choice about that.

>  no sane dce/rpc programmer wants their namespace polluted
>  by samba function namespace [there are technical ways to
>  deal with this, if you can be bothered].

see the glue pipe.

>  no sane dce/rpc programmer wants to have to waste their time
>  looking through 350,000 lines of code [there are no technical
>  ways to deal with this].

see the glue pipe again ...

>  dce/rpc server-programming the programmer expects to have
>  total control over their application, and just use an API:

again, see the glue pipe ...

>  that way you can have a test server program of 400 lines of code,
>  it's understandable, readable, simple, and totally independent.

right, see the glue pipe.

>  the last thing a dce/rpc programmer should have to worry about 
>  is some stupid configuration file, and how to load it, of some
>  totally separate package that has nothing to do with their
>  application.  [read "smb.conf" for "stupid configuration file"].

as I've mentioned, the packets go via smbd if they are using the SMB
transport, so you really can't avoid a smb.conf.

I don't imagine any of this (which has been said so many times before)
will stop you foaming at the mouth, but maybe it will be useful for
those who have only recently joined samba-technical.

Cheers, Tridge

More information about the samba-technical mailing list