[LDB] Simplify ldb_wait()

[simo]

On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 18:55 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 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
> > wrong.
> > 
> > > > 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? 

We committed not to change the API if not absolutely necessary.
There are other projects using ldb now (OpenChange is one of the most
prominent), and changing API is not welcome unless we need to do it for
a good reason.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <ssorce at redhat.com>