On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 02:53, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Love" == Love <lha@stacken.kth.se> writes: > > Love> Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> writes: > > >> So I think at least for the MIT implementation the oid vs > >> non-oid question will already be settled by then. > > Love> I consider the ioctl + skim with implemetion specific ioctl > Love> layer mostly useless. It will make force application > Love> developers to deal with an exploding API. > > I consider an exploding API desirable. Well it is more like I want > application authors to be able to call APIs for the extensions they > need. > > > I'll drop heimdal-discuss from > future posts as it seems we have incompatible goals. Just one question: As a developer of one of the applications that just needs to get at the various subkeys (for the reasons previously described), will I or other Samba developers need to cope yet again with two mutually incompatible API implementations? We already have too much 'shim code' - shims between the MIT and Heimdal APIs, and I would really prefer it didn't grow bigger.... Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett abartlet@pcug.org.au Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet@samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet@hawkerc.net http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
This is a digitally signed message part