CVS update: tng/source/passdb

Jeremy Allison jra at
Mon Jan 7 18:44:02 GMT 2002

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 01:33:17PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:

> It might be nice if the code to do dcerpc was less coupled to Samba,
> so that it can be reused to help such good causes.  So Evolution can
> link to libsambadce or whatever, and share code maintenance.  (In
> fact, it looks like it would probably be a library plus code
> generator, like most RPC systems.)
> Once you've made that split, you could perhaps refactor Samba to use
> the library from several different processes.  That seems like a
> secondary point, and simply a matter of taste for Samba developers.


	You only need Samba code if you want to do DCE/RPC
over named pipes. Luke makes a big thing about transport
independence, indeed this is one of the strengths of DCE/RPC.

In which case in order to allow MS clients to connect to a UNIX
DCE/RPC server you don't need Samba at all, as you only need
to be running the DCE/RPC endpoint mapper (which listens on port
135 and acts like portmapper - maps arbitrary DCE service endpoints
to strings so clients can find them) and tell your MS clients to use
the TCP transport.

The only time you need Samba code is if you wish to plug in
named pipe backends into the SMB transport, which the plug-in
API Andrew describes is ideally suited for the task.

The code for the DCE/RPC system has been release (not as Open Source/
Free Software though I believe) so it can be studied freely
for an interoperable implementation.

I'm afraid Samba is being used here as a convenient whipping post
for Luke's other problems and past grudges. That's a shame but
it doesn't affect the technical arguments.



More information about the samba-technical mailing list