ab at samba.org
Wed Jun 21 14:03:02 GMT 2006
Gerald (Jerry) Carter пишет:
>>> 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.
Love or hate it but we still need GUI management for Samba bundled.
Every other attempt to build it separately as open source sucked so far.
The trouble is that we'll hardly have an UI for Samba management bundled
with Samba itself if it is in so hard need by vendors to differentiate.
I understand the value of making usable perl/python/whatever language is
by external management software but we already have ejs in samba4 and
will be using it for initial configuration there as well. Make a librpc
interfaces and ejs bindings will come out of others (me, for example).
Currently SWAT is samba3 is not maintained by anyone, merging it for
most of functionality with upcoming Samba4 SWAT work is a way to get it
maintainable and up to date.
>> 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.
From my practical experience (I run samba admins mailing list for
Russian-speaking admins which gathers about 500 admins across exUSSR
area) there is steady amount of requests related to SWAT usage and
configuration through swat.
>>> 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
> 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 :-)
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Samba Team http://www.samba.org/
ALT Linux Team http://www.altlinux.org/
Midgard Project Ry http://www.midgard-project.org/
More information about the samba-technical