libsmbclient revamp - need opinions quickly

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Mar 3 19:49:21 GMT 2008

On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 19:27 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:14:05AM -0500, Derrell Lipman wrote:
> > I've received feedback from Volker and Andrew, both thinking that no
> > change to the libsmbclient API should be made.  Volker suggested a
> > parallel libsmbclient where one maintains the status quo, and the
> > other is for future improvements.  As a review, my changes are ABI
> > compatible so existing applications, already compiled, will continue
> > to run fine, but I have changed the field names of the context
> > structure so that recompilations will encounter errors (by intention),
> > the user will look at the header file and see that they should now be
> > using the getter/setter interface rather than reading/writing the
> > context structure members, and older programs will eventually all
> > migrate to the new interface.
> Just for the record: I am against this change.
> But as everybody else on this list seems to like it, I am
> apparently the only one.

You are not the only one.  I looked over the changes required as noted
in the WHATSNEW, and it just seems pain for pain's purpose.

If we are keeping this much the same, and ABI compatability, why the API
changes again?

Sure, add new, better interfaces that help protect against accidental
ABI changes in future, but I still don't quite get why the API breakage
change is required. 

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
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 :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list