defining the new idmap subsystem

simo idra at
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
> mappings.

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).


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list