[PATCH] sam backend parameter

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at samba.org
Tue Oct 1 15:57:01 GMT 2002

On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 06:06:34PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] sam backend parameter':
> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Jelmer,
> > 
> > here's a patch witch changes the syntax of the sam backend parameter:
> > 
> > now it's plugin[|DOMAIN][:options] ... I think it nicer:-)
> > 
> > If you didn't accept that patch please move the 'strchr' to 'strrchr', (but
> > there're also a few other bugs, in the parsing sam_backend_string in
> > make_backend_entry()), because as it is now it didn't work with:
> > 
> > plugin[:options][|DOMAIN] :-(
> > 
> > plugin:/usr/lib/samba/sam_passdb.so:test|test2:test3|test4|MX.BASE
> Well, I'm starting to think our syntax is just getting too complex.  All
> the 'solutions' for putting 'domain' in there just look ugly!
I agree.. A configuration file should be intuitive, and this really isn't.

> Some poor admin has to construct this line, and even if they don't use
> multidomain stuff (and that's almost everybody), then have to read the
> doco that attempts to explain it.
> I think we should remove the DOMAIN bit compleatly, and allow backends
> to store both their own SID and thier domain name.  If they don't 'know'
> it, then they can either chose the default, or use a 'parametric option'
> to specify it.
> EG:
> sam backend = ads:ldap://foo smbpasswd:/etc/private/smbpasswd
> sam 2:domain = DOM2
> (Where the prefix 'sam 2' would belong to the second SAM on the line).
> Likewise for all paramaters apart from a simple 'location' in the sam
> backend line.
What we really would need is 'nested' config options, althought I wouldn't have any idea how we
could implement that. Having a 'sam 2' parameter would be a bad and nasty hack as well.. 


More information about the samba-technical mailing list