[SAMBA4] Using ldb_map for pure translations

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Tue Aug 1 23:01:59 GMT 2006

On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 00:49 +0200, Martin Kühl wrote:
> On 8/1/06, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> > I started on an entryUUID module, but I'm wondering if we should either
> > have lots of extra logic in the current ldb_map to cope with never
> > reading a local database, or create a new module, sharing many of the
> > support routines (which replace values in the parse tree).
> I'm not sure if it would really require lots of extra logic.
> The largest subproblem seems to be handling of attributes without an
> associated mapping.  My first reaction was to propose "catch-all"
> mappings of a form like
>     .local_name = "*",
>     .type = MAP_KEEP,
> but as the only sensible choices here seem to be MAP_KEEP and
> MAP_IGNORE (which is implicitly used right now), we could just
> parameterize the module with this choice.

I'll do that.  I have a slightly different hack at the moment. 

> With that in place, targeting only a single partition would be
> immediate for add/modify requests (as the local message would always
> be empty) and could be done easily for the other requests (with a test
> whether the base DNs are equal, say).
> I'm hesitant about sharing the support routines because the
> differences between our intentions would affect both high- and
> low-level routines and we would be limited to sharing those in
> between.  That said, the request handling should be a lot easier for a
> single partition, so only the low-level routines would need to be
> changed, and ripping out the mapping routines should make the current
> module less unwieldy.
> Still, I think I prefer the former option.
> > My initial attempts are attached.
> >
> > What do you think?
> They're looking pretty straightforward.  And make me think of a whole
> bunch of problems one will run into when the local and remote base DNs
> are equal, so thanks for raising the issue.

Yeah :-)

> Any specific reason you pushed the call to `find_local_attr' down into
> `partition_msg_el'?

To get the name, because if we have a wildcard mapping, the map.name
would be "*".

> > If we can make this work, I would like to merge your ldb_map code into
> > the mainline.  What is the best way to do this?
> I'm still working on an issue with parse-trees, and I'd like to clean
> the module up a little (rename/reorder functions, use fewer gotos,
> maybe add section headers), but should be done in one or two days.
> After that, I can supply a patch to the list for review (and bashing
> my coding style :-).  And eventually, someone (me?) might merge my
> branch(es).

What are the open issues with parse trees?  I'm playing with this today,
and knowing the landmines could be useful...

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com
-------------- 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/20060802/6def12e2/attachment.bin

More information about the samba-technical mailing list