idra at samba.org
Tue Oct 3 19:28:27 GMT 2006
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 21:19 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:07:11PM -0400, simo wrote:
> > Is there any logic flaw you see besides the "it is just too compicated"
> > opinion?
> No principal flaw, but that design is too close to what led
> to the mess we have now. While running through the woods it
> just struck me that we have to separate both tasks, have
> separate mapping modules, a single allocator and we end up
> with a very simple and explicable design. It was one of the
> moments where I thought "Hey, that's the solution I was
> looking for for years...".
Uhm I am defeated on this one :-)
But the nice thing is that the design I have in mind can cope with
either solutions so I don't care too much :-)
I'd like to make the default "domain" the one that defines the allocator
Is it ok a syntax like:
the allocator will be in the range 60001-500000
I'd like to tie this to the default domain to avoid wrong configurations
where we have overlapping ranges
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical