On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 09:55 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 09:34:54PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > I would prefer that, yes.
>
> I would prefer not.
>
> > I am hoping other SSSD developers would chime in as well so that the
> > decision is not a one man party, but I personally prefer the code to
> > read consistently. If the socket underneath is a shared NSS one or a
> > NFS one is an implementation detail.
>
> But it has extremely important consequences on locking and thread
> safety, and using aliases, while it may help readability in some areas
> can also be quite confusing from the coherency POV.
>
> Simo.
OK, what is your proposal?
To use only one function name to access a pipe. The function refers to
the communication channel used, not the commands sent on it.
If you prefer to rename the ..nss.. function to something more abstract,
that's fine too.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York