idra at samba.org
Mon Sep 27 18:25:26 GMT 2004
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 18:40, Neal Schilling wrote:
> It seems to me that using ldb would only be reinventing the wheel. XML
> is a well recognized standard, human readable and editable, easily
> extendable for modules, and already contains the tree-like structure
> that the smb.conf file should inherintly contain.
> I wrote a quick DTD and smb.conf file using XML. It is by no means
> complete, but it should prove my point of simplicity.
>From the point of view of whom ?
Not the administrator.
But it has other worse problems.: it is slow and it is not scalable at
Right now smb.conf being textual and needing parsing each time you read
it is a scalability problem in some configurations, it also make it
difficult to modify options and each time you have to rewrite the whole
file, same with xml (afaik). ldb, is not only fast for reading and
searching but using tdb is also fast to update, you can use locks and
mmap the file.
I like XML and we still do not know what will samba4 use.
But if we want to keep a textual format then it's easier to keep the
current configuration file.
ldb has pros that xml do not have.
Simo Sorce - idra at samba.org
Samba Team - http://www.samba.org
Italian Site - http://samba.xsec.it
More information about the samba-technical