[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Spurred on by some complaints in IRC :-) I took a look at the passdb > backend code in HEAD and 3.0.
So I see... Must remember never to sleep... > It looks nice, but it's horribly complex for what it needs to do > (IMHO). Is there any real reason to have multiple possible backends > simultaneously in a cascaded interface ? The cascaded stuff was added because I felt it could be useful - and ctrlsoft wrote a patch the used the existing code to maximal advantage. Then, I took this work further and used it to help keep the issue of 'unix accounts not in the sam' (and their matching rids) at bay. Personally, I like the idea of abstraction, where this special case is dealt with in a module, rather than in the interface. This appears to be contrary to the fundamental design philosophies of others :-( > I can see the benefits of a plug-in architecture to allow different > backends to be tested, but what we need is to do *one* good backend > implementation (my vote would be for an LDAP one) and then use that > to implement others - modfying the interfaces as needed to support > any idiosyncracies that come out of the different backends. I'm not sure what you mean here, but it sounds like a really bad idea... I much prefer a relatively sane (yes, it has it's problems) interface that all backends can implement without difficulty. > If someone wants to change from one backend to another a decent > export_all/import_all interface method is all we need (probably > using the enumerate methods). Changing backends is a major thing > to do (IMHO) as it means moving data between different databases, > and I'm worried that the existing code makes it look as though you > can just change a parameter and have it happen automatically. Well, how do you propose to make it 'harder'. It really is just export and change an option, and I think that is a good thing. > Comments welcome..... but I do want to start cutting out some of > this code soon. Yes, well while the current design has it's problems, I do think that it provides a solid base to move into 3.0. (vl has a patch for it that I think does some nice stuff too, without pulling it apart too far). 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