Hi David,
On 2013-05-16 at 14:42 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM, David Disseldorp <
dd...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> > This call creates a new share definition, using the parameters provided
> > with a smbconf_service structure.
> > Such an interface allows for simple cloning of services with:
> > smbconf_get_share(conf_ctx, mem_ctx, base_sharename, &base_service_def);
> > base_service_def->name = clone_sharename;
> > smbconf_create_set_share(conf_ctx, clone_sharename, base_service_def);
Attached find a patchset that bases on your patch and
changes the code according to our discussion at sambaXP:
- moves the implementation from the reg backend to the
central smbconf.c file
- wraps the action in a transaction
- removes the smbconf_ops function for create_set_share again
If you are happy with the changes, we could squash them
together with your initial patch and submit this under
your copyright and
Pair-Programmed-With: /me
and signed-off-by /me
additional patches:
- improve some doxygen for the transaction calls.
- change "net conf import" to use the new smbconf_create_set_share()
The patches are also in my master-libsmbclient branch:
https://gitweb.samba.org/?p=obnox/samba/samba-obnox.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master-libsmbconf
> Looks OK but I thought to ask for proper ABI handling for libsmbconf since
> it is public library. Should we actually increment its ABI version (it has
> none right now) with this change?
Not certain if we want to publish it.
What would be the advantages/disadvantages?
If yes, the above branch contains a version bump patch.
Is that all that is needed?
Cheers - Michael