[PATCH] Remove subclasses from LDB?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:03 -0400, simo wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 09:38 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:36 -0400, simo wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 15:36 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > As such, I would like to remove the complexity.
> > > > 
> > > > Thoughts? 
> > > 
> > > I am ok for removing the usage from sam.ldb, but I am not for removing
> > > completely this functionality yet. LDB is not just the sam.ldb backend,
> > > and I'd like to let others still have this simplified way of using
> > > classes.
> > 
> > Is it really simpler?  The reason I don't like it is that I always find
> > implicit matches harder to comprehend than a simple 'match one of these
> > strings'.
> > 
> > (Particularly when LDAP doesn't do this, so it's not an 'expected
> > behaviour'.)
> 
> Uhmm make sense to some extent, well I guess we can remove that if you
> feel strongly about that.

Thanks, I've removed it.

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/20070919/c693e33f/attachment.bin