> On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 12:59:47PM +0200, Eddie Lania wrote: > > > Well, I'm starting to think our syntax is just getting too complex. All > > > the 'solutions' for putting 'domain' in there just look ugly! > > > > > > Some poor admin has to construct this line, and even if they don't use > > > multidomain stuff (and that's almost everybody), then have to read the > > > doco that attempts to explain it. > > > > > > I think we should remove the DOMAIN bit compleatly, and allow backends > > > to store both their own SID and thier domain name. If they don't 'know' > > > it, then they can either chose the default, or use a 'parametric option' > > > to specify it. > > > > What about using the WORKGROUP parameter as the default domain vallue? > > And an extra parameter like "multiple domain support = > > False|DOMAIN1,DOMAIN2,etc"? > > > > It's just an idea, I am not a developper myself tough. > What domainname/domainsid would belong to what sam backend then...? > > Jelmer
Like I've said, I'm not a developer, but maybe the "multiple domain support" parameter could be extended with the backend method? Like this: "multiple domain support = DOMA:backendA, DOMB:backendB, etc" But I guess this will be to long too. Anyway, I do like the idea of specifying a separate "domain" parameter just like the workgroup parameter. Greetings, Eddie.
