cshring at gmail.com
Wed Nov 22 07:08:47 GMT 2006
On 11/22/06, simo <idra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 22:56 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:51:40PM -0500, simo wrote:
> > > Volker I did some work in samba4 to put share definitions on an ldb
> > > database. I think makling shares accessible vie the registry is a very
> > > interesting idea, what about discussing this development a bit and maybe
> > > come to agree to something that can implemented in both tree in a
> > > compatible way (from the user interface pov at least) ?
> > I think the user interface is quite simple IMO. We have a
> > registry key per share and the params are represented by the
> > individual values. Two things to talk about:
> > Where do we put it in the registry? The path proposed is
> > just that: A quick proposal.
> I think this is the least important, you could even have a parameter in
> smb.conf that determines it.
This is important considering the huge amount of parameters that could
be associated with a share. And a change in the path via smb.conf
would result in a huge unnecessary update in the backend
I was working with 'HKLM\SYSTEM\SAMBA\SAMBACONFIG' as a root. The
move away from using SMBCONF is to avoid confusion / interrelation
> > How do we cope with the data types? For example "valid
> > users" would be a perfect fit for REG_SZ_MULTI, "force
> > create mode" is more of the numeric type. Right now I assume
> > everything as a string, but this is what I mean by "rough".
REG_SZ_MULTI is not necessary for all the parameters , but for only
the string ones. The rest (numbers , bools ) could be dealt with
REG_SZ. Advantage ? The length is fixed and definite.
More information about the samba-technical