On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 03:10  PM, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> In fact on the contrary you are now simply confirming the reason for
> using a shim or wrapper API, especially a two-way one as I suggested, 
> in
> the first place -- i.e. an API which includes both BSD Auth client
> functions and PAM client functions and which can be configured (at
> runtime or at compile time) to call either framework out the back end.
> Such a shim or wrapper API actually makes it better for everyone since
> with any application would use either framework without (as much)
> porting effort regardless of which client API it might support best
> natively.

It doesn't make it better for ANYONE, since there are no applications 
which use your hypothetical "shim" API.

         -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>