[16993] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: : Why are we using libverto again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Hartman)
Thu Jul 7 14:04:51 2011
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:04:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1310060202.2694.67.camel@t410> (Greg Hudson's message of "Thu,
07 Jul 2011 13:36:42 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslvcve2chy.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
Greg> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 10:44 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Now, for the KDC today, we could just use a specific event library and
>> gain significant complexity savings.
Greg> The reason I favor an intermediary is that the event loop will be part
Greg> of the API for kdcpreauth plugins (and probably KDB and authdata plugins
Greg> in the future). Picking an event loop now carries costs not just for a
Greg> future libkdc but also a plugin interface transition cost.
I understand that. And based on your description of a simple
intermediary, that made some sense. However the complexity of the
intermediary has far exceeded what I was expecting. I'll admit that my
original simple vision wouldn't have worked, but I think we should all
carefully consider what we got and whether it's worth the cost.
If everyone else had a more accurate estimate of the complexity when
they read your original proposal and I'm the only one who has been
surprised, then we should move forward with this plan.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
