samba 4: a new configuration system?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 21:55 -0700, Raymond Lillard wrote:
> Tim Potter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 23:41 +0200, Sebastien Estienne wrote:
> >>I was wondering if samba 4 will have a different configuration file
> >>format, maybe something with  an Api to ease writing configuration
> >>gui.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think that issue has been resolved yet but I am guessing that if
> > the configuration file format is changed it will involved ldb somehow.
> 
> I hope not.  I realize I am "old school", and I fully realize
> I am NOT a decision maker here, but dammit what's so bloody
> wrong about flat text files that can be modified with "vi" or
> *emacs*?  We don't need to turn Samba in *)&$^%& windows.
> 
> Text files are well established as the Unix way of doing things.
> I've had my fill of system configuration databases that become
> corrupted and have to be rebuilt.  It's the same bullshit as
> the windows registry and we all know the sorry mess it is.
> Wouldn't we all like to have back our wasted time caused by it.

I agree here, and to a point, this is actually the direction Samba4 is
moving to.  Leaving configuration aside for a moment, and instead
looking at the issue of run-time state, Samba4 has made great leaps
forward:

Unlike Samba3, Samba4 stores all runtime state in a human-editable
format.  This format is ldb, and while it is binary on disk, is far
better than what Samba3 had (cf secrets.tdb).  Samba3 stores it's data
in a format that is almost impossible for a human to edit, even with
tdbtool.  Samba4 provides ldbedit, ldbsearch etc to manage the ldb
databases - you can bring up the ldap-like record in the editor of your
choice.

Now, the problem with configuration data is that in many ways, it is an
expression of run-time state.  Not only with web interfaces, but also
with the remote administration tools in the DCE-RPC protocols.   This
can and will change many aspects of Samba's configuration.

I'm a strong believer that while text-based configuration has it's
usability problems, it is also a vital link with what makes Samba
different: we do benefit from being able to add arbitrary comments to a
config value, we do benefit from the absurdly over-extended macro
syntax, and we do benefit from the ability to simply place the
configuration into version control, or paste a copy on a mailing list.

What we need to figure out is how to merge the two worlds: structured
syntax is one way, an 'include this ...' system is another (I have
proposed that file shares be configured this way, with text-based for
the default, with additional shares configured from an ldb, if the admin
so chooses).

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Developer, SuSE Labs, Novell Inc.        http://suse.de
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20050623/3e38b4a1/attachment.bin