Freezing v3-2-stable (2nd edition)
bj at SerNet.DE
Wed May 14 13:54:13 GMT 2008
On 2008-05-14 at 08:34 -0500 Gerald (Jerry) Carter sent off:
> I can agree with the theory of the patch I suppose.
> I'm not signing off on it yet however. What was the
> alternative set of defaults?
the alternave that Volker proposed was to default connection timeout
to the value of "ldap timeout" if that (then obsoleted) parameter was
set. But as I said not even the ldap timeout value is the timeout that we
currently encounter in case the LDAP server is down. We run into a tcp timeout
which makes the whole multi LDAP server fallback thingy useless. The ldap
connection timeout is a feature that is not really covered by the current
implementation of "ldap timeout" like you can see in #4544 and thus the
alternative set of defaults is not useful IMHO. The short connection
timeout, independent of the previous "ldap timeout" is more reasonalbe.
> | The other point I do not like about this patch is that it
> | mixes up the Netscape NSS support with the change in
> | parameters. But again, if this finds a supporter in the
> | Samba Team except me, then I will not block it :-)
> I agree on this point. The new timeout parameters should
> be a separate patch from the Netscape LDAP changes.
> But even on that I have to wonder, is it really the right
> thing to do to support the Sun libs? I mean who will
> ensure that they don't get broken again?
We do support the LDAP libs already, just SSL support is missing. I
don't understand what you mean with "who will ensure that they don't
get broken again?". Are you afraid that there are not enough people
who test Samba on Solaris and it might break at some point?
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
More information about the samba-technical