Gerald (Jerry) Carter
jerry at samba.org
Wed Jun 21 13:46:10 GMT 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> Volker Lendecke пишет:
>> Along all this discussion I always have the problem that I
>> don't have a clear picture where we want to go, I'm a bit
>> missing the initial "user" of this API.
Mono, Centeris code, SuSE, RedHat, etc... Having an rpc based client
lirbary is a huge advantage to everyone.
>> What do you think about going into swat (I've NEVER looked
>> at that code to be honest)? To me this looks like a simple
>> enough application that would be a user of this API, and
>> it's very easily usable and thus testable.
SWAT sucks. We suck at GUIs. Always have. If you want wide spread
testing, write a client rpc lib and provide python and perl bindings
for it. I will guarantee that sysadmins will use it.
> I agree with you on this. I also had ideas to actually rewrite
> SWAT in samba3 by backporting ejs and webserver code (as
> standalone app) from samba4.
Why backport ejs? I don't see any advantage there and I'm not
a big fan of ejs anyways. From a scripting interface, perl or
python would be more familar from an administrators point of view.
To do that, you write bindings against the rpc client library.
>> My worry is that someone implements some API for some
>> internal IBM management interface (I don't think I'm telling
>> secrets here... :-)) that is then not general enough or not
>> of enough use.
Apparently the mono guys want the win32 equivalent Net APIs.
Centeris needs them, vendors need them. As long as the discussion
is on this list (and it will have to be to make it into the tree),
I'm not overly concerned about an IBM agenda :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the samba-technical