[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mechanism extensions and the GSSAPI

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