smbd/source3 or ntvfs/source4 for new VFS module development?
abartlet at samba.org
Thu Jan 28 08:58:42 UTC 2016
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 08:39 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:56:22AM -0500, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> writes:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:31PM -0800, Zack M. Davis wrote:
> > > > Dear list,
> > > >
> > > > When developing a new VFS module, does it still make sense to
> > > > put it in
> > > > source3/modules/vfs in the source repository and use the
> > > > `smb_register_vfs`
> > > > API as illustrated in examples/VFS/skel_*.c? Or is it
> > > > preferrable to use
> > > > the source4/ntvfs infastructure (which is newer, but ominously
> > > > described as
> > > > shares" at
> > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba/Status#Feature_Status_on
> > > > _the_AD_DC)?
> > >
> > > source4/ntvfs is dead. It's legacy code, that will eventually be
> > > removed.
> > When is eventually?
> > Cheers, with pitchforks and torches,
> If you send the patch, I'll review it :-).
> Although might not be until next week as I'm
> in FOSDEM in Europe from tomorrow until next
> Thursday (with a side-trip to the UK to visit
> family :-).
I know you would love to get out the pitchforks, but I would be much
happier if we kept with the current state where it is disabled in
default production builds, but is still kept building for developers
and working with the testsuite.
For one thing it is still the only part of Samba with the CIFS proxy
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
More information about the samba-technical