On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:30:30AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Gerald Carter wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Eddie Lania wrote: > > > > > 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" > > > > Can someone please explain the purpose of supporting accounts from > > different domains in a single SAM ? Why would we ever want to do > > this? > > No, the idea is that one SAM backend would know about only one domain, > but that we could have multiple domains, each with their own backend. > For smbd it doesn't make much sense, except that I was looking at > handling 'builtin' stuff by abstraction into a separate 'domain' this > way. (I favor putting special cases into modules, rather than in > interfaces). > > The other cases for 'multiple domain' support involve the way these > users are reflected back into unix by winbindd, which might be running > on a system that has multiple, independent smbd instances on separate > IPs.
Use vmware or virtual hosts for this. It's not something that Samba needs to be architectured around. > In any case, the syntax will need to get much clearer if this is to stay > around for long. (idra seems determined to kill it). Me too. This is too ugly to live. I also don't agree that BUILTIN should be handled as a separate domain. The multiple domain stuff really has to go, as Gerry says, why would anyone want to do that ? Jeremy.
