abartlet at samba.org
Thu Sep 9 06:03:23 MDT 2010
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 12:49 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Tridge,
> > In your recent irpc changes, why did you remove the convenience
> > functions and macros? I can understand the underlying handle changes,
> > but the resulting API that is now used has become a lot more verbose,
> > for no obvious reason.
> Because I wanted to get rid of 'struct irpc_request' being public.
> If you really want we could add an IRPC_CALL() macro for the sync case,
> but I prefer that it's clear that the normal dcerpc bindings are used.
I've never really understood quite what the benefit these bindings are
to the caller. Can you fill me in on the details? I know it's part of
your plan to have the right place to keep state etc, but I don't really
understand it more than that.
> > For example, where we previous had a irpc_call_send() we now have
> > about 25 lines of code.
> I guess you mean the changes in pymessaging...
> but irpc_call_send was removed and this place would be the only
> caller of it, but that had implied that it's needed to keep irpc_request
Is that a problem? In a lot of the code I've been doing with tridge, we
often added helper functions for just one use - but we soon found we had
more callers. In this case think keeping the ability to do a simple
sync IRPC is still quite a valuable thing.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the samba-technical