ABI stability of internal DBs

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Wed Jul 7 03:35:52 MDT 2010

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:20:22AM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > Ok, so you are proposing that for all our internal databases
> > like locking.tdb we create stable APIs like libwbclient,
> > along with the messaging protocols, which need to be
> > encapsulated similarly?
> No, only for things which need to be accessed by other applications.
> For internal things we just need to support for 2 versions
> of a protocol or db format, how we do that doesn't
> matter...

That's exactly the testing nightmare that I tried to lay out
earlier. We can do that, but this will slow us down
tremendously. If we make that promise, we will potentially
have to support n different versions. Vendor A will require
the upgrade from 3.3.10 to 3.5.4, Vendor B will require the
upgrade from 3.4.7 to 3.6.1. Vendor C will step in with yet
another combination.

If that is our decision from now on, we will need MUCH
better review of all changes. Mandatory tests for the
upgrade procedures and tests with running clusters with the
promised upgrade versions will need to be designed.

I wonder who will provide the resources for this testing
infrastructure. RedHat? IBM? SuSE? Other vendors with
clustered Samba?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100707/1a9eef2f/attachment.pgp>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list