[16167] in Kerberos_V5_Development
RE: Profile include support, round 2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danilo Almeida)
Thu Aug 26 15:33:57 2010
From: "Danilo Almeida" <dalmeida@mit.edu>
To: "'Greg Hudson'" <ghudson@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1282831895.8066.1446.camel@ray>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:33:48 -0700
Message-ID: <005601cb4555$9c523100$d4f69300$@edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
Greg wrote:
> It would not be difficult, but I'd prefer not to.
>
> By making included files syntactically independent of their parents,
> we've removed pretty much all of the "attractive but pathological" use
> cases. Adding additional restrictions means creating more error codes
> and more error-handling code without, in my opinion, protecting the
> admin from any likely mistakes.
Ah, I see your point... there would now be the potential for a new "hey, you tried to include a profile file from the middle of a relation" (or somesuch) error condition.
I was more concerned about the idea of having parser support the odd-looking construct from the perspective of design rationale and documentation. The syntax begs the question, "why was it done that way"? I understand the explanation, but does that mean the explanation should go in the docs? (I am thinking both in terms of admins and implementers.)
Thanks,
- Danilo
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
