hash-based notify and dnotify?

[Volker Lendecke]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:10:14PM -0800, James Peach wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I'm not sure that FAM is maintained anymore, so it  
> might not be as much of a fallback as you might like.

The only alternative I see is to essentially implement the
FAM functionality in a daemon of our own: Some daemon needs
to keep track of the directory contents its clients are
interested in and regularly match reality with its cache.
dnotify can only help in figuring out when to look next
time without waiting for a timeout.

The question is: What should I do first? Check in my patches
to import the Samba4 notify subsystem? In the state it is
now it would lose the dnotify and hash systems. Thus we
would risk that I get distracted to other things by paying
customers. On the positive side I think the system I have
offers a vastly more correct implement than what we have
now. Waiting for the full implementation restoring the hash
and dnotify backends within the new infrastructure might
mean we lose the whole thing due to bit rot. I now already
start to get conflicts due to Jeremy's trans2 refactorings.

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20070130/8bac9937/attachment.bin