Commit my stuff to 3.0?
simo.sorce at xsec.it
Mon Oct 14 07:52:01 GMT 2002
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 09:05, Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE wrote:
> > Yes, we need a simple solution, but I'm not sure there is one...
> Seeing all these Problems I am now not sure if removing all the
> dependencies on algorithmic mapping is a good idea. I'm currently
> looking at the code from a different perspective: All this mess came
> up for the vampire stuff. So, why not treat these RIDs as the
> exception, and really go for the algorithmic mapping as the rule. I
> know, I have argued very strongly against that, but it might only have
> been because I did not see all the consequences. The code probably
> would have to be cleaned up, but it might simplify a lot.
No, algorithmic mapping is only a source of problems.
It is easy to implement but does not scale at all.
There are no many parts in the code the assume algorithmic mapping and
an idmap is all we need.
Btw, this issue existed for months before the vampire (eg. cifs 2001 at
least), vampire is only the last one.
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20021014/a6d84cc4/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical