Another showstopper for 3.2.2.

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Sun Aug 17 14:33:40 GMT 2008

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:24:12AM -0400, simo wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 16:19 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:13:50AM -0400, simo wrote:
> > > The patch itself seem ok, but why playing with building a tring to make
> > > lookup_name parse it again ? Why not just passing the domain as a new
> > > parameter to lookup_name ?
> > 
> > Because lookup_name does a lot of logic to get non-qualified
> > names right. If you always have to pass in a domain name,
> > someone else needs to get the domain part right. Where would
> > you put that logic?
> This is the logic to split domain and name strings:

Ah, you would allow "" as domain name.

Well, if it is the general opinion that this is a simpler
API, then sure. But I had thought that lookup_name() should
be the single central point you can throw a string at and
get a SID out of it. If that API is too simple, then feel
free to change it. My vote would be to leave it as it is
(but then I'm biased, I put it in).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list