On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 09:49:04AM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote: > > Jeremy Allison schrieb: > > > > Yes, that's exactly what I'm coding up right now. > > Wait for the check-in :-). > > good:-)
Actually, this proved much harder than I thought and I junked all my client changes last night. I was able to rescue most of the DFS server fixes though... > Then you need 2 code pathes in the server code, and one will never be > tested. > > I think it's not the best design to allow 2 different things in one > protocol-field. > > why not reply and accept a full path with the unix '/' delimiters, when > we are in unix mode and a full path with windows '\' delimiters in > non-unix mode. I am starting to come to this conclusion myself. It's harder on the clients, as they can be traversing a posix style path to a posix server, and then be given back a referral in Windows path mode, and then have to change on the fly to the relevent delimiter for the referral path only, not the consumed part..... This gets so hairy that was what made me junk my client changes above. Currently I've gone back to '\' separators only in DFS paths until I think out the client changes needed. Jeremy. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
