Rant re mutation [Was libsmbclient functionality addition]

[Andrew Bartlett]

David Collier-Brown wrote:
> 
> Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > The problem I have here is that we do not seem to have asked our user base
> > what they want.
> >
> > I can appreciate the need for changes, as I need them myself, but
> > maintaining backward compatibility may be something that is important,
> > given that libsmbclient is being shipped with a number of Linux distros
> > now.
> 
>         [Time for my standard Multics rant again, suitably
>         bowdlerized...]
> 
>         I recommend shipping a "filter" library implementing the
>         existing libsmbclient calls without the handles,
>         but implemented in terms of calls to the new ones,
>         with a hidden handle.
> 
>         Call this libsmbclient.so.1, and the one with the
>         new calls libsmbclient.so.2
> 
>         Ensure both are built and installed by default,
>         and warn people that .so.1 will be dropped from
>         maintenance after .2 stabilizes.  Anyone needing
>         backwards compatibility will get it, but will
>         also get to accept the cost of maintaining the
>         filter library themselves.

We don't have it split into different library versions yet, but this is
indeed what the design called for, and what (it appears) has been
implemented.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net