hash-based notify and dnotify?

[James Peach]

On Jan 30, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:

> 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.

Wouldn't you rather be working on Samba than take over FAM  
maintainership? :)

> 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.

IMHO, getting notifications correct within Samba is more important  
than synchronising with external changes. It's generally Windows apps  
and scripts that rely on notifications. If no-one steps up to maintain  
the backends, I support your decision to drop them.

--
James Peach | jpeach at samba.org