Extending LDB for Extended DNs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 06:03 +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> 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.

Oops.  As you can see, I was able to consolidate these into a single
file.

> Also the rpc_server/dcerpc_server.c should be on its own.

Oops, I had tried to split that out.  I wonder what happened..

> BTW: why is that needed? why should we return an assoc_group_id
>      if we didn't find the interface the client asked for?

Only because windows returns a non-zero here.

> 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

Would it be aright to just do the merge?  I can't see easily how to
split for example the new ldb modules from the extended dn handling and
the adding of controls per entry.  Certainly I can try and cherry-pick
the ldap_decode_attribs_bare change (and the new control), but without
reworking the rest I don't think it helps.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com

-------------- 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/20081216/8aa360ac/attachment.bin