[LDB] Simplify ldb_wait()

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 12:33 -0500, simo wrote:
> Why have you changed the ldb_wait() prototype from getting an handle to
> get a full request?
> It seem that the new ldab_wait() never uses req at all except as in
> req->handle.

Because nobody passed ldb_wait anything by req->handle.  It also could
allow the handle to be replaced, which would allow modules to simplify
their tail (and avoid the full blocking that currently occurs, even when
the module is just dealing with it's final operation). 

> It seem to me an unnecessary ABI change for ldb.

Are we seriously keeping an ABI on ldb yet?

> Also it is not clear to me why instead of changing ldb_wait() you
> haven't simply addedd an helper function to do what these modules where
> doing all the time, it seem to me that such a change would achive
> simplification without changing the API. What do we gain from the new
> API (and most importantly ABI change) you propose?

Because a helper function would indicate the same problem - yes with
less code, but the same problem - why should every module have to handle
this, when only some target backend modules can actually do a
non-blocking wait?

This change removes that complexity, and much-repeated code, from the
modules. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20071112/467863a2/attachment.bin