It seem easy, but that prevented (at least in my case) to make the system better. The way we use multiple module in passdb is subtly broken and exposes us to inconsistency and a lot of races. and is not nice to have races in the users database.
the sam initially made a sane route and we also discusse dto not permit anymore multiple backends at the same time, consistency and races where my concern, but seem that thesse arguments have not stick I still think sam is in the wrong direction, as multiple domain will never be supported in samba so going that direction by default instead of relegating the possibility in an module is wrong imho. Plus I recently found another big problem in the interfaces that have to do with race conditions, but that's another story ... Simo. On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 12:51, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Simo Sorce wrote: > > > And in my honest opinion we should get out the possibility to have > > multiple backends active at the same time, I really think that move has > > put us back 6 months in development and has caused more problems than > > what the pros get with such a monster. > > I still don't see where you draw such a conclusion. In the pdb code, > the multiple backends case just fell out of the design - it cost us very > little indeed. The same applies to the new SAM stuff, it didn't impose > a significant design penelty, but was catered for. (In the case of the > SAM, each domain must have only one backend however). > > Andrew Bartlett > > -- > Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net -- Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xsec s.r.l. via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
