Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI

[Love <lha@stacken.kth.se>]

Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org> writes:

> 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....

I'm doing my best to minimize the api differences, so it would be good if
MIT documented their apis they are going to implement.

For old api some incompatiblities its not going to be fixed (its not
realistic for eather of us to change). For other issues I'm still waiting
for comments from the MIT folks (see mail to krbdev)

Love

PGP signature