tdb_chainlock() in tdb1, tdb2 and tdb_compat ?

[Ira Cooper]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
<metze at samba.org>wrote:

> Am 18.04.2012 09:16, schrieb Christian Ambach:
> > On 04/13/2012 07:41 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >
> >>>> I think tdb2 is different enough we should really not mix tdb with
> >>>> tdb2.
> >>>> It would be better to rename all tdb2 apis to not clash with tdb1 and
> >>>> slowly convert callers while we keep both dependencies.
> >>>> Once all tdb1 callers are gone we have only tdb2 left to maintain.
> >>>
> >>> +1.
> >>
> >> +1 from me also. Trying to mix the two is a receipe for disaster.
> >>
> >> Break the API/ABI for tdb2 and have done with it - it's a separate
> >> library.
> >
> > +1 from me as well.
> >
> > If TDB2 API semantics are so different from TDB1 but the function names
> > are the same, this just cries for issues.
>
> +1
>
> That would it also make it much easier to write a sane compat layer
> using the old prototypes.
>

+1.

Or just break the back compatibility, and go straight against TDB2.

I'd like Rusty to have a bit to think here, there may be things he can do
much better when freed from a few pieces of the API/ABI.

Thanks,

-Ira