defining the new idmap subsystem
idra at samba.org
Tue Oct 3 03:43:20 GMT 2006
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 20:20 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:10:54PM -0400, simo wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 13:03 +1000, Luke Howard wrote:
> > > >I think the code will be much uglier but if most want that, so be it.
> > > >But I'd like some more people complaining about that, before changing.
> > >
> > > I agree with Jeremy, having something done as a side-effect of an
> > > interface whose primary purpose is to query seems like a bad idea
> > > to me.
> > The problem is that the primary purpose depends on the context.
> > In some cases we just want to know if a mapping exist, but don't want to
> > actually trigger a mapping, in others we want to trigger a new mapping,
> > but that will happen only if the backend supports it.
> Then we code so that we query first, and if it fails we request
> a mapping, and deal with a failure if the backend doesn't do
Thinking some more,
what's the real difference in doing this and asking imdap to allocate by
There is exactly the same chance of abusing of an explicit check+alloc,
you just duplicate the check+alloc code in more places and give chance
to add more errors from my POV (and I am sure you would end up creating
a service function that does the check+alloc for you anyway).
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical