Modified revamp of the libsmbclient interface.

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 13:27 -0500, Derrell Lipman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Volker Lendecke
> <Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de> wrote:
> > Hi, Derrel!
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:25PM -0500, Derrell Lipman wrote:
> >
> > > Given the tacit (if that) approval by some people, and clear disapproval by
> > > others for my proposed clean-up and reorganization of libsmbclient, I've come
> > > up with a slightly different approach.  This commit changes back to the
> > > original libsmbclient.h SMBCCTX structure which will maintain ABI
> > > compatibility.  I retain, here, the setter and getter functions which all new
> > > code should use.  Older programs already compiled should continue to work
> > > fine.  Older programs being recompiled will encounter compile-time errors
> > > (intentionally!) so that the code can be corrected to use the setter/getter
> > > interfaces.
> >
> > As I said in a former message: Would it be possible to do
> > this patch in a way that the old library is still around? I
> > would really like to keep that up as is for compatibility
> > reasons.
> >
> > I do see the need that the client libraries need to be
> > worked on, but I would like to be kind to our library users.
> > At the point when the new library provides new and cool
> > features, people will switch themselves because they need
> > those.
> >
> > Volker
> >
> 
> Hi Volker,
> 
> I think you're seriously overestimating the amount of change required
> by our library users. :-)  Between the dotted lines, here, is the diff
> for 13 of the 16 test programs in examples/libsmbclient:
> 
> ......................................................................
> 
> 
> 
> ......................................................................
> 
> Yup, that's right.  No changes required to 13 of the 16 test programs.
>  Of the other 3, there were only a few lines of changes.

Which were?  

> I also just downloaded kde to see the extent of the changes required
> there.  Four lines.  That's all.  The changes are, in nearly all
> cases, limited to initialization.  There will be a very few
> applications that require slightly more change than that, but I really
> do expect the changes to be slight, and it should be only very few
> apps.
> 
> Given the limited amount of change required at the source level, and
> the now eliminated need for any change of previously compiled programs
> (since it's ABI compatible), I don't think it's necessary nor prudent
> to have parallel libraries.  With parallel libraries, neither will get
> as much testing as it should.

But if you do change it in an incompatible way, then you *must* bump
the .so version, which means you force a recompile (at least), and then
we are back to the original problem of forcing a samba-compat onto
distributions.

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/20080303/c5211591/attachment.bin