On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 06:06:34PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] sam backend parameter': > "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote: > > > > Hi Jelmer, > > > > here's a patch witch changes the syntax of the sam backend parameter: > > > > now it's plugin[|DOMAIN][:options] ... I think it nicer:-) > > > > If you didn't accept that patch please move the 'strchr' to 'strrchr', (but > > there're also a few other bugs, in the parsing sam_backend_string in > > make_backend_entry()), because as it is now it didn't work with: > > > > plugin[:options][|DOMAIN] :-( > > > > plugin:/usr/lib/samba/sam_passdb.so:test|test2:test3|test4|MX.BASE > > Well, I'm starting to think our syntax is just getting too complex. All > the 'solutions' for putting 'domain' in there just look ugly! I agree.. A configuration file should be intuitive, and this really isn't.
> 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. > > EG: > > sam backend = ads:ldap://foo smbpasswd:/etc/private/smbpasswd > > sam 2:domain = DOM2 > > (Where the prefix 'sam 2' would belong to the second SAM on the line). > > Likewise for all paramaters apart from a simple 'location' in the sam > backend line. What we really would need is 'nested' config options, althought I wouldn't have any idea how we could implement that. Having a 'sam 2' parameter would be a bad and nasty hack as well.. Jelmer
