[PATCH v2] File Server Remote VSS Protocol server

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Tue Mar 24 09:59:01 MDT 2015

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:07:11PM +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:32:39 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > I agree that tdb_pack/unpack is a pretty ugly interface, and I'm fine
> > > with using idl for [un]marshalling. As mentioned though, I don't think
> > > this should be a show-stopper for merging this feature - conversion to
> > > IDL should be possible without a change to the on-disk format.  
> > 
> > Wouldn't this mean that we have to teach PIDL about the format
> > tdb_pack/unpack uses?
> Yes. Which would be desired anyway, for other in-place tdb_pack->IDL
> conversions.
> > The reason why I jumped on this is that this will be
> > another fresh piece of code that will have to be converted when someone
> > wants to get rid of tdb_pack. We already have data upgrade procedures
> > all over the place, for example in pdb_tdb. Whenever I look at those I
> > get the impression that we can never ever get rid of this code, although
> > it is neither well tested nor in use at all anywhere anymore. If we know
> > that we want to change the data format soon, I would hesitate to create
> > new data files with an already deprecated format.
> Fair enough. On that, couldn't we consider mandating that upgrades are
> only supported if they're done from versions >= X versions behind the
> latest? E.g. users would need to go via an intermediary version if they
> wish to upgrade from something really old.

Ok David - I'm going to suspend reviewing until you get
consensus on replacing or going forward with the
tdb_pack code.

Let me know when it's ready for review or you have
a new version. I'll ping you again in a few days if
I haven't heard anything :-).

Please don't give up/drop this patchset - it's *massively*
valuable work !



More information about the samba-technical mailing list