On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:58:05PM +0200, Pavel Kankovsky wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > > - export pam_set_data() and pam_get_data() to the PAM apps; > > IMHO, it is a bad idea to reuse (read: abuse) an existing interface > designed to do one thing (private storage of opaque module data) to do a > completely different thing (provide a communication channel between apps > and modules, or "extensible pam_[gs]et_item()"). PAM items certainly have grown in quantity. pam_?et_data() and pam_?et_item() are similar enough the main difference being the way items and data are named. The fact that pam items are identified by enum integers makes it hard to extend them. String naming conventions are far easier to deal with. A new interface through which the app can inform and query PAM for various things, with an API and an SPI, would be better. But exporting pam_?et_data() would be easiest, and given their similarity to pam items I see no real reason not to do it. > --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] > "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation." > Nico --
