multi-indexed tdb

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tridge,

>  > Simo,  Is this really necessary?
>
> I can understand Simo flaming, as Volkers statements
> were extremely inflammatory. It would have been better
> if Simo had ignored the inflammatory remarks, but I can
> understand the immediate reaction to flame. I had
> much the same feeling myself, and almost wrote a flame
> mail, then thought better of it.

I'm not going to get into this with you.  Simo is a big boy
and he can take up for himself.  And for that matter, so
can Volker.

What I will say is that Volker posted a patch.  What is the
big deal?  Jeremy liked it.  Metze liked it.  I'm still
reviewing it.  Volker was being very conservative in his decisions
and so far, I like that part of it.

Volker decided he did not want to port ldb.  That's his call.
So far no one opposed that.  He also stated why he didn't want
to port ldb.  Whether you agree or not, it's still his call.
If you or anyone want to port ldb to Samba 3, feel free.
But it is unfair to expect Volker to do the work based on
someone else's wishes when his currently implementation already has
enough review and support to stay in the tree.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but ldb has no real consumers
right now does it ?   Samba 4 is the only one I'm aware of.
How can you have any discussions about "stability" (meaning
"data integrity") with there is no record of it.

The term stable can be interpreted in several ways some good
and some bad.  So my interpretation of "stable" is equivalent
to "in flux".  That's not a bad thing, but it is no reason
to fault Volker for not choosing it.  I know some packaging
projects were going to pick it up, but Simo himself has stated
that he can't really commit to a stable solid API yet (and hence
not support a released standalone .so).  I can dig up that email
thread from the list (was either here or on ldb-devel) if you
like.

> I'll be intererested to discuss that with Jeremy. Maybe
> I missed the discussion on that decision? I have not been
> keeping up with email at all well lately.

Seriously?  Jeremy has always complained about talloc_steal().
I remember he asked Volker to remove it specifically from
the new lookup_name() code and Volker agreed about it.

> Maybe my 'about talloc_steal()' email will help kindle some
> debate on talloc_steal() and whether it is a good interface?

I did respond.  Didn't really change my mind.  :-)



cheers, jerry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE4T47IR7qMdg1EfYRAqW5AKDy4N57LR/cMJUllNTpFOixwouq2QCcC+DC
1lxCRMLdtDH6ssol9k8W9GM=
=W22W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----