FAST error handling and our plugin interface

Sam Hartman hartmans at MIT.EDU
Thu Mar 5 13:48:56 EST 2009

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <jaltman at> writes:

    Jeffrey> Sam Hartman wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <jaltman at>
    >>>>>>> writes:
    Jeffrey> Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> >> However we don't have that plugin interface today and it is
    >> >> desirable to keep things working with the current plugins.
    >> So, >> my plan for the current interface is to continue doing
    >> what >> we're doing in the non-FAST case.
    Jeffrey> For clarity sake, just how many plugins are we talking
    Jeffrey> about?
    >>  I don't know.  I know of two companies that would be affected
    >> with shipping products that it would be difficult for me to
    >> change, and suspect others.

    Jeffrey> These vendors are not going to replace 1.6.x with 1.7.x
    Jeffrey> in their already shipping versions.  1.7.x will go into a
    Jeffrey> new major release and the work necessary to update the
    Jeffrey> plug-ins for the new interface should not be significant.

I disagree with you about the compatibility model we should work to
achieve.  I think it is desirable to make upgrading to a new krb5
release very easy for vendors.

If there were a compelling cleanlyness you could get by breaking the
old interface, I'd agree.  However I suspect at least one vendor would
end up shipping both interfaces, and as I mentioned in my first reply
to you I think some similar uglyness is inherent in needing to support
both old and new format errors.

I do think that we need to come up with the new interface though.  And
if we come up with a particularly clean interface for the new plugins
I think it might be desirable to make a clean break.


More information about the krbdev mailing list