On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 08:43 -0500, simo wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 21:04 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Sorry, I re-read the patch, and this statement isn't correct.
> > This isn't in the public sync API, which we have largely stuck to for
> > quite some time now. Have we decided to freeze the async API at this
> > point (as I think it is still far from ideal)?
> While not ideal, the async API is public, and unless there is a
> substantial benefit in a change I don't want to unnecessarily change it.
Given that, would you have a chance to re-factor this to your
expectations? The current situation is madding to code (copy and paste
just creates more bugs) and maddening to debug, because of the extra
code to step though. That's why I started all this.
I would also like to change, as I indicated, the returned handle, to
reduce the number of callers on the stack in case of callbacks, as this
is again maddening to debug, as one tries to handle gdb though loops of
loops of loops (all doing exactly nothing), down to the actual
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.