tdb_chainlock() in tdb1, tdb2 and tdb_compat ?

[ronnie sahlberg]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

Agree. Lets break back compatibility.
We need TDB2, but we need a the best TDB2 we can get.
Lets not cripple it by imposing semantics or restrictions from the
TDB1 API we want to break from.

A new api, a new namespace, a new clean start.




> Thanks,
>
> -Ira