idra at samba.org
Tue Oct 3 19:31:10 GMT 2006
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:28 -0400, simo wrote:
> 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
Ah and by the way would it make sense to put the HWM in somthing like
secrets.tdb or should we always put it in the tdb database normally used
by idmap_tdb ?
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical