hash-based notify and dnotify?
jpeach at samba.org
Tue Jan 30 21:29:25 GMT 2007
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
> 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
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
More information about the samba-technical