Extending LDB for Extended DNs

Stefan (metze) Metzmacher metze at samba.org
Tue Dec 16 05:03:54 GMT 2008

Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 13:46 -0500, simo wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 19:39 +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>>> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
>>>> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 12:35 +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 13:38 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:21 -0500, simo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 11:35 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 18:28 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 18:23 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 22:33 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Great.  I've been working on this hard for the past week or so.  See
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=abartlet/samba.git/.git;a=shortlog for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current work in progress.
>>>>>> I've just updated this tree again.
>>>>>>>> Anyway I would not put it in if it is going to break the LDAP backend,
>>>>>>>> we should have it working for.
>>>>>>>> I have gone through great pain myself to make sure my stuff did work
>>>>>>>> with LDAP with the async patches, is there a reason to apply a different
>>>>>>>> standard in this case ?
>>>>>>> No, there isn't, and you are right to hold me to that standard.  I'm
>>>>>>> working on the changes to allow this to work with OpenLDAP's dereference
>>>>>>> control right now.  
>>>>>> I've updated my tree, and with some small changes to ldb
>>>>>> (ldb_module_send_entry() now takes a control parameter) and a lot of
>>>>>> other work on modules and control parsing, it all works!
>>>>>> I would like to merge the above tree into 'master'. 
>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>> I'll review your stuff over the weekend.
>>>> I'll brace myself :-)
>>>> But seriously, while I know it will mean more work for me, I do
>>>> appreciate your reviews.
>>> I didn't looked at as close as I wished, as it's not that easy to
>>> review with all the merges and bug fix commits.
>>> But I think you should push it to master.
>> It would be nice to see a clear diff before the push at least.
> See attached.  (I've skipped the regenerated swig files)
>> I personally would also like a rebase much more, but our samba git is
>> cluttered enough already that probably it won't make much difference in
>> the noise :-(
> I agree. 
> Andrew Bartlett
I think extended_dn_out_dereference.c and extended_dn_out_ldb.c should
be left out.

Also the rpc_server/dcerpc_server.c should be on its own.
BTW: why is that needed? why should we return an assoc_group_id
     if we didn't find the interface the client asked for?

If possible I'd like to see multiple commits for the rest:
1.) add the extended dn handling into ldb_dn.c + headers + tests
    (I assume this only adds new functions and no existing caller
     needs to be changed)
2.) add controls per entry support.
3.) all the code that splits out ldap_decode_attribs_bare()
4.) the new ldb modules and required provision changes
5.) the new/modified tests for the new functionality of the new modules


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20081216/f447a7e1/signature.bin

More information about the samba-technical mailing list