[15993] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Plugin project proposal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicolas Williams)
Thu Jul 15 16:39:49 2010
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:32 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
To: Zhanna Tsitkova <tsitkova@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20100715203931.GM22556@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8DD7AD829AB61E499A433D6E558110A302348A7E01@EXPO7.exchange.mit.edu>
Cc: "rra@stanford.edu" <rra@stanford.edu>, "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:26:19PM -0400, Zhanna Tsitkova wrote:
> Well, in the proposed implementation the plugin module writer would do the following:
I was talking about the function exported by the framework, not the
plugin code.
> plhandle
> plugin_pwd_qlty_krb_create()
> {
> plhandle handle;
> plugin_pwd_qlty* api = malloc(sizeof(plugin_pwd_qlty));
> api->version = 1;
> ...
> api->pwd_qlty_init = _plugin_pwd_qlty_init;
> api->pwd_qlty_check = _plugin_pwd_qlty_check;
> api->pwd_qlty_cleanup = _plugin_pwd_qlty_clean;
> handle.api = api;
> return handle;
> }
>
> and then define each of the methods:
>
> static kadm5_ret_t
> _plugin_pwd_qlty_check(...l)
> {
> // do actual quality validation and return
> }
>
> In my opinion this approach is friendlier to the writer of the plugin
> implementation. The writer can concentrate on the particular
> functionality without caring the burden of other implementations.
That's fine, but that's not what my reply was about.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
