On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 09:03 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 07:55 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:10 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > Since sdap_async_accounts.c is becoming a great monstrosity, I've
> > > created a call graph of functions defined in there. The graph shows
> > > where in the file is each function defined there called and it
> > > already takes Jakub's last big set of patches into account. I'm
also
> > > sending the source .dot file in case anyone wants to extend it in
> > > the future.
> > >
> > > I hope it will be useful to more people than just me.
> >
> > I think this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need to split
> > this file up into the following (much) smaller files:
> >
> > 1) sdap_async_accounts_users.c - Common functions for processing user
> > lookups
> > 2) sdap_async_accounts_initgroups.c - Common functions for processing
> > initgroups
> > 3) sdap_async_accounts_initgroups_2307.c - The real workhorse for
> > initgroups on RFC2307 servers
> > 4) sdap_async_accounts_initgroups_2307bis.c - The real workhorse for
> > initgroups on RFC2307bis servers
> > 5) sdap_async_accounts_groups.c - Common functions for processing
> > groups 6) sdap_async_accounts_groups_2307.c - RFC2307-specific group
> > processing 7) sdap_async_accounts_groups_2307bis.c -
> > RFC2307bis-specific group processing
>
> This looks excessive to me, probably ok to do just:
> sdap_async_users.c
> sdap_async_initgroups.c
> sdap_async_groups.c
>
> (yes I am dropping 'accounts' at this point as it is redundant)
I would much prefer that the RFC2307 and RFC2307bis pieces be separated
out.
I think this will be influenced by possible function merging (which I mentioned
in the ticket). I'll analyze the situation and let you know which approach
seems to be better.
Jan