libsmbclient new options (bug #2308)

[Derrell.Lipman at UnwiredUniverse.com]

Derrell.Lipman at UnwiredUniverse.com writes:

> The options structure is specifically intended to be manipulated by the
> library user, so it does not belong in "internal".  I believe, however, that
> binary compatibility can be maintained with the previous version by moving
> the "options" structure to immediately before "internals" structure.  When
> libsmbclient is recompiled, it will know where the new location of the
> "internals" structure is.  No external users should be accessing things in
> "internals" so all other addresses in previously-compiled apps should
> continue to point to the right place.  (We could put "options" *after*
> "internals" but that would disallow ever changing anything in "internals"
> and still maintaining binary compatibility.  I recommend putting "options"
> just *before* "internals".)
>
> Jerry, should I re-open the bug with this suggestion?

Jerry, I'll make these changes late this afternoon (EST), re-open the bug, and
attach a patch.

I see that there's also a new "flags" field in the context structure.  That,
too, should be moved above "internals" since it's apparently intended to be
accessed/modified by the user, so the "internals" structure can grow without
affecting binary compatibility.  In fact, "flags" should either be _before_
"options" (so that "options" can expand in the future) or be added into
"options".  The latter seems more appropriate, don't you think?  I'll add the
flags into "options" when I make the changes this afternoon, unless I hear
back from you to the contrary.

Cheers,

Derrell