proposition of further changes in dcerpc code

Rafal Szczesniak mimir at
Mon Dec 5 21:49:59 GMT 2005

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 10:05:49PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> > 1) Because it's uniform with the rest of composite functions - I kind of
> >    used to structure interface here... (yes, I know there's no in/out
> >    substructures, but it's probably going to be)
> Hmm. Looking at the newer composite functions it's not so popular anymore to
> create structures. But this is really a matter of taste, up to a certain number
> of parameters I find it a lot more convenient to call a function with
> parameters.

Indeed. Being used to old-style composite functions influences the way
I design them "by default". I can, obviously, put arguments back in
place, if we decide there's not much benefit they bring. That's the easy

Rafal Szczesniak
Samba Team member

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list