Use common filesystem loader

[bbockelm]

When the TPC library was maintained out-of-tree, we had to stick to the public interfaces. This forced the filesystem loader code to duplicate a lot of logic (not necessarily 100% correct).

With this change, the plugin will make a call directly into the internal function that does the SFS loading elsewhere in Xrootd.

@abh3 - if you are OK with the approach and implementation, there's another place where we can remove code in XrdMacaroons.

Fixes #1034

[abh3]

Hi Brian, I am generally OK with that though we should look to see if we can use the SFS interface that teh xrootd protocol loads as opposed to loading it twice. The bigger question is why are you using the SFS interface and not the oss interface? Andy

…

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Brian P Bockelman wrote: When the TPC library was maintained out-of-tree, we had to stick to the public interfaces. This forced the filesystem loader code to duplicate a lot of logic (not necessarily 100% correct). With this change, the plugin will make a call directly into the internal function that does the SFS loading elsewhere in Xrootd. @abh3 - if you are OK with the approach and implementation, there's another place where we can remove code in `XrdMacaroons`. Fixes #1034 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: #1035 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix const'ness of the loader declaration. * Switch from homegrown plugin loader to the common one. -- File Changes -- M src/XrdTpc/XrdTpcConfigure.cc (73) M src/XrdXrootd/XrdXrootdConfig.cc (2) M src/XrdXrootd/XrdXrootdLoadLib.cc (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/1035.patch https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/1035.diff -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1035

[bbockelm]

can [we] use the SFS interface that the xrootd protocol loads

I suspect we could - is it obvious how to "pull that through" to the plugin?

The bigger question is why are you using the SFS interface and not the oss interface?

This code also needs to work on redirectors.

[abh3]

Ah, I see. We could if we could gaurantee that xrootd would always be loaded first. Unfortunately, people can subvert that by command line overrides so it's not a sure thing. Mind you, you will potentially be loading the SFS without any user specified wrappers.I assume you simply ar ere looking for the "xrootd.fslib" directive to load the correct thing, right? Andy

…

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Brian P Bockelman wrote: > can [we] use the SFS interface that the xrootd protocol loads I suspect we could - is it obvious how to "pull that through" to the plugin? > The bigger question is why are you using the SFS interface and not the oss interface? This code also needs to work on redirectors. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1035 (comment)

[bbockelm]

I assume you simply are looking for the "xrootd.fslib" directive to load the correct thing, right?

Correct!

[abh3]

I see that this pull request is still in draft form and cannot be merged. Do you have an estimate of when this will be ready?

[bbockelm]

Oh! I see that I missed Andy's last comment. Marking as ready-to-review.

[abh3]

Not quite ready, as there seem to be conflicts now. In any case, we likely need to re-review this in the context of stack-able plugins that appears in R5.

[abh3]

Can we close this pull request as it doesn't seem applicable after all the other changes around this issue.

[abh3]

Can we close this pull request. It has merge conflicts and I think this was already fixed in another way, right?

[abh3]

Is this pull request even relevant now?

[bbockelm]

I think we can close this right now - can always come back as needed.