idra at samba.org
Tue Oct 3 17:59:54 GMT 2006
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 19:45 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:46:23AM -0400, simo wrote:
> > So if current design is ok, I'd propose to write down the new IDmap
> > implementation so that it is equivalent with the current behavior and
> > then when we are ok with it, discuss a bit further and eventually change
> > the allocation rules to do implement the unified Unix ID mapping and
> > change other code accordingly.
> What about the following idea: ID mapping from its generic
> task does not have anything to do with ID allocation.
Uhmm mapping often requires allocation, I don't see what do you mean.
> Proposal: Why don't we have two separate module interfaces,
> one for id mapping and another one for allocation. idmap_tdb
> and idmap_ldap would support the set_mapping call, whereas
> idmap_ad and others would not.
Can you elaborate some more?
Actually I think we will do exactly this, some modules will let you
allocate IDs others will not. The IDmap core code will always decide
> Separate from this question
> is the task to allocate new ids. I could imagine setups
> where this would give additional flexibility. And then we
> have less pain later when we want to switch to a 'allocate
> both' strategy.
Can you be more specific and give me an example scenario?
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical