Samba IDL Pragmatism?

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at
Wed Feb 16 00:28:57 GMT 2005

Hi Michael, Ronnie,

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:16:05PM -0500, Michael B Allen wrote about 'Re: Samba IDL Pragmatism?':
> Actually I think "ctrlsoft" is Jelmer. Is that you Jelmer?
Yep, that's me. 

> ronnie sahlberg said:
> > I am not disputing that top level pointers are ref  by default
> > regardless of what  pointer_default is set to.
> > samba idl files   do not follow this which my idl-lite compiler works
> > in the same non-dce compatible way.   i.e.    all idl files i am
> > interested in  are really samba4 ones  so i had to break my compiler
> > in order to generate correct code to unmarshall the packets.
> > i have pointed out to them that  this, insisting on using idl files
> > that translate to different wire encodings compared to what a dce
> > compiler would generate would make it "difficult" for people to use
> > non samba4 idl files,  such as dcom idl files   and use them
> > unmodified.
> It would sure be nice if they would fix this. Jelmer, what's the reason
> for not using [ref] for parameters unless explicitily stated otherwise? It
> that just to save typing?
"Historical reasons", I would think (have to ask tridge to be sure). Currently both 
top-level pointers and embedded pointers default to "unique" so I
think this is rather something not picked up from the spec (and the
MIDL docs) then something we didn't implement that way on purpose.



Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at> - - ctrlsoft at
-------------- 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