Re: GSS-APIv3 sketch

[Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Love Hörnquist Åstrand wrote:
> 
> 11 nov 2009 kl. 10:42 skrev Nicolas Williams:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:40:50AM -0800, Love Hörnquist Åstrand wrote:
> >> 
> >> I have so many comments that I don't know where to start.
> >> 
> >> First out: any work that doesn't include async is dead in the water.
> > 
> > Oh, I forgot to mention that.  It does include async.
> 
> If the api requires calling sane function serveral times with the same arguments, the API is broken.
> 
> >> Its not mentioned how this is gss3 objects relates to gss2 object.
> > 
> > They are distinct.  The compat shims take care of that.
> > 
> >> Well-defined SPI will force everything to reimplemnent GSS-API
> >> semantics in all layer, this sucks and duplicates code.
> > 
> > No, see the compat shims.
> 
> That doesn't answer my question, making the SPI look like the API is the problem.

Actually, I have options to set the SPI symbol prefix to anything you
like, so as long as you don't have additional SPI arguments (as we do in
OpenSolaris) you're OK.  But ALSO, I did answer your question: providers
that don't support he new SPI can be accessed via v2u1 mechglues used
through the v3 mechglue (that's what the note about shims was about).