Named Pipe API - clarifying the issues.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 12:49:33PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:36:55PM -0500, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > While I understand that you feel Samba could be rewritten to make extensions
> > easier (hardly a point I'd argue against), aren't you overstating your case
> > a little?  You make it sound like they're in league with Microsoft in an
> > effort to undermine open-source development, or something.  No one is
> > stopping anyone from forking off a seperate version if they think they can
> > do better.
> > 
> > I'm sure you realize that while you may see Samba as an Important Political
> > Weapon against the Great Satan Of Redmond, to many (probably most!) people
> > it's simply a useful software package for getting work done.
> 
> Exactly. Plug-in's are great. Plug-in's will make what Luke
> wants much easier. That was I can continue with "NOT CARING"
> (which Luke thinks is an offence :-) whilst the people who
> want to care about DCE/RPC named pipes can happily work within
> that framework.

hurray!  fantastic!

so, it looks like we now all realise that we are referring
to the same thing.


so, the most appropriate API actually offloads DCE/RPC
*entirely*.

[and that happens to be very convenient for the Wine team, too,
as they need to implement CreateNamedPipe and friends].

agreed?

lkcl