CTDB API

[Alexander Bokovoy]

Volker,

Volker Lendecke wrote:
> I think in this stage anything is fine, I think a first 
> implementation of the base protocols is more important. I think the
> fine details of negotiating the exact conditional and/or
> implementation needs to be fixed before we go production, but for now
> _I_ would not put too much emphasis on this point. I would implement
> a string-based argument to the open call or a separate call which
> tells the daemon which semantics we're talking about and implement it
> in the server. Certainly this needs to be modularized, but I would go
> for a quick and dirty one first, because I think we can not _really_
> cleanly solve this, essentially this corresponds to sql stored
> procedures. Executable code embedded in the database on different
> architectures....
> 
> Just my 2 cents :-)
:-)
I agree that for first stage we probably OK to just link ctdb lib
together with smbd and just fork off the dispatcher daemon as we do with
lockd right now in vl-messaging. The reason we record these notes and
take care of layer separation is to not repeat these errors twice later.

The layer separation isn't actually changing API right now, so it is a
side note for next revision.

-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Samba Team                      http://www.samba.org/
ALT Linux Team                  http://www.altlinux.org/
Midgard Project Ry              http://www.midgard-project.org/