Query regarding GSS API.

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 20:42 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Hi.  I'm certain these APIs have not been implemented.  I do not
> remember the thread well enough to determine whether we committed to
> these APIs or not.

Last I recall there were objections to the specific nature of the APIs. 

However, I'm uncomfortable with any solution that causes us to use
different APIs for Heimdal and MIT (there lies madness).  As I'm not
committing Samba4 to even trying to use MIT's libraries until after a
stable release (when I hope our API use pattern might be stable), I
never chased it further.

I'm quite serious about the API use pattern BTW.  I have found that as
we move on with Samba4 and Heimdal, I have reduced our diff between
Lorikeet-Heimdal and Heimdal, as better solutions have been proposed, or
patches intergrated.  Nobody wants a long-term system library burdened
with my 'good idea at the time' Samba4 specific hacks.  

We need general solutions, adopted across both library codebases.  Yes,
I realise this is hard and painful, but it the standard I need to
maintain my sanity.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/attachments/20060201/387ec6a8/attachment.bin