[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI
>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Christopher> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
Nicolas> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 02:26:54PM -0400, Sam Hartman
>> >> And yet none of these are useful if we are specifying at the
>> >> shim layer.
Nicolas> Specifying at the shim layer. I'll have to think about
>> If we don't specify at the shim layer, then we cannot depend
>> on the shims being present. That means that people are forced
>> to code to the ioctls, which makes extensions hard to use.
Christopher> Maybe this is oversimplistic, but why not provide the
Christopher> shims as library/source to be linked into the
Christopher> application that deal with the ioctls below the
Christopher> applications view of them?
This seems more complex for authors of applications than being able to
depend on shims being present.
ALso, it means you need to specify a stable, extensible protocol
between the shim and the mechanism. That's significant work that you
avoid by making the ioctl specification a mechanism implementation