Le 20/11/15 10:03, Zheng, Kai a écrit : >>> I'm not sure I see the point of having one gigantic Enum gathering all the >>> possible flags that we can set on any different kerberos element. > Ok, got your point. Yeah, KrbOption is becoming big, including all kinds of > options from frontended mechanism (PKINIT, TOKEN ...), tools (KINIT, Kadmin), > and so on. That may be basically because KrbOption(s) accompany with > KrbClient and KrbClient is full of all the client side APIs. The centralized > APIs may be easier to users to look for and use. > >>> that would make it more complex for coders to know where everything is >>> coming from and will disconnect the implementation from the RFC, making it >>> harder to understand for new comers that have the RFC in front of them. > Agree. We should definitely improve this. For now we can add meaningful > comments for each group/set of options. Further refactoring and improvement > are expected given more thinking and ideas. Will keep this in mind.
Note that it's juts my opinion. I just find it easier to stick to the RFC, instead of doing it 'à la Microsoft' (ie, redefining everything...)
