Le 20/11/15 10:52, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Thanks Emmanuel! > >>> I just find it easier to stick to the RFC ... > Agree. Just forgot to mention that in the core we do stick to the specs and > define those types, like KdcOption. I would regard KrbOption(s) as the bridge > or wrapper for the KrbClient API to frontend and interact with users' > applications.
I understand. Users might be confused by the various Enum, when they are to pick the right one for the tool they use. > > Note I'm not thinking in the current codes the client API (including the > KrbOption) is defining ideally. Instead, it would be great to have it well > reviewed and discussed before a formal release. We do have enough time for > that. It's definitively a blured area. I don't like classes/enums with tens of constants, it's a kind of a pain for users, but the alternative is not clear to me... Definitively something that worth a discussion, I'm not sure I would stand on my position which is not perfect either...
