WIP WSP patches
nopower at suse.com
Thu Aug 18 12:31:30 UTC 2016
On 18/08/16 12:10, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:20:58PM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
>> As promised here is the current set of patches for (work in progress)
>> WSP (Windows Search protocol) It would be really great to be able to
>> have this as an experimental feature. There are alot patches involved,
>> some of them you have seen before but they never really got progressed.
>> I hope I can get your help to push on further with this -)
> Sorry it took so long: I would feel a lot better if this went without
> modifications to core rpc_server.c. Is it possible to write this as an
> external daemon listening on a unix domain stream socket, like the
> fssd.c does. This might not be RPC, but raw pipes, but the idea should
> be the same.
I don't really get it, wspd is currently intended to be configured as an
external daemon listening on a unix domain socket same as fssd does,
'setup_named_pipe_socket' that handles all of that is essentially what
has been changed in rpc_server.c, the necessary changes needed to
support that are imho pretty minimal. The alternative if I understand
what you mean is to duplicate that functionality (basically the server
loop) in wspd itself.
Also, It is also possible to run in embedded mode, an instance per
client kindof matches the way WSP appears to work in that a client can
open the pipe mulitple times (for related queries), it may even be
possible at some stage to somehow leverage that per-userness wrt tracker
(although currently I have to admit I don't have any idea about that).
Note: the code that supports the embedded service is similar to and
additionally reuses those changes in rpc_server.c
> I might be completely off here, but if-statements in rpc_server.c lead
> to problems later I guess.
I am not qualified I guess to say more than I think the changes
(especially related to the if(s)) are pretty small, I think the little
bit of infrastructure added was what I understood metz previously
suggested (but of course I could have misinterpreted)
More information about the samba-technical