[LDB] Simplify ldb_wait()
abartlet at samba.org
Mon Nov 12 07:55:26 GMT 2007
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 02:50 -0500, simo wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 08:32 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > 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).
> I think I decided to pass the handle and not the request intentionally,
> right now I can't remember why. I think manipulation of the request from
> modules may have been one reason, ie *avoid* making it possible to
> change the handle you are waiting for. but memory is not good I might be
> > > It seem to me an unnecessary ABI change for ldb.
> > Are we seriously keeping an ABI on ldb yet?
> No but I want to keep API (not ABI) changes to a minimum, and avoid
> unnecessary changes.
So is this a yes or no?
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20071112/165c309f/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical