order of idmap backends

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:39:14PM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> At 20:32 25.06.2003 +0000, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:24:06PM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > > Hi Jeremy,
> > >
> > > why did you change DLIST_ADD() to DLIST_ADD_END() ?
> > >
> > > in smb_register_idmap()
> > >
> > > why is the order important?
> > >
> > > we should have this in sync with the other smb_register_*() functions!!!
> >
> >Because I thought the order was important. It *should* be !
> >This is very broken right now....
> 
> I think it's not impartant and also should not be important!!!
> (we just search in a linked list and it doesn't matter on which position 
> and list element is!)
> 
> and I can't see were it's broken.

Because smbd should be asking winbind, not doing anything directly
in idmap. winbind should be looking in the tdb, with ldap as a remote
backend.

This code has been written to be generic, when it *ISN'T* generic.
The is and should be an ordering in this.

Don't worry, Jerry and I are going to fix this....

Jeremy.