On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Tom Jansen wrote: > Hi, > > > Here, I want to make it possible for people do do: > > > > smbc_handle1 = smbc_init(client_name1); > > > > ... a bunch of ops using smbc_handle1; > > > > smbc_handle2 = smbc_init(client_name1); > > > > ... a bunch of ops using smbc_handle2 > > > > That is, a single program can pretend to be multiple clients. > > I can make some time to help you implement this stuff if you would like that. > I've got a few extra questions about that too: > > o Will all smbc_* functions get the handle when called ?
Yes, they have to be given the file handle. The major issue here is that this will break all existing programs. I have spent some time trying to think of a way to avoid this breakage, but fear that I cannot do it easily. > o Will the filetables still be global or will they be handle specific ? (Global > is better IMHO. That way, only connection-initializing functions like smbc_open > need the handle. And this eases porting to the "future"-libsmbclient) This is a good point. The filetable should perhaps be global. > Furthermore, my upcoming patch (for the suggestions that started this thread) is > coming along nicely. I'm busy cleaning it up to match the samba-code-style. great ... > Some new features: > o The cache system is different now. By default the internal cache system is > used but that is changeable. (I will explain this beter when the patch arrives) > o The servers are organized in a server_table now and have filedescriptors so we > don't have to give internal information to an externa cache system. (I think > this approach eases the change to the "handle-system" you mentioned above.) > o Checking of the server connection before it will be pulled out of cache. > o Transparant reconnects upon failures. > > Please, if you (Richard, the samba-technical people) have any suggestions, speak. OK. I will wait for the patch ... Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
