On 09/22/2011 03:37 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:25:01AM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> On 21.9.2011 23:55, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>> On 09/21/2011 10:27 AM, Adam Young wrote:
>>>> On 09/20/2011 11:11 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 10:02 -0400, Adam Young wrote:
>>>>>> This discussion got me thinking, always a dangerous proposal:
>>>>>> We are currently exposing record add with the lie  that  when you add a
>>>>>> record, it has a type.  THe reality is that a record is just this big
>>>>>> collection of multi value attributes, and each of those  is the "type"
>>>>>> of the record.
>>>>> The way I see it is that we have different types of Resource Records
>>>>> with a (domain) name that can be shared.
>>>>>> If all of the 'records'  have the same idnsname, then they really fall
>>>>>> under the same Record object in LDAP.
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> What if we focuses on the attribtutes themselves, and add the type info
>>>>>> there.
>>>>> I thought we do this already.
>>>>>> Pie in the sky proposal.   Treat it as a starting point:
>>>>>>   From the webui perspective
>>>>>> dnsrecord-add   allows the case where it just has the the idnsname with
>>>>>> no "records"
>>>>>> dnsrecordattr-mod  takes record type specific values.
>>>>>> To add a location entry:
>>>>>> ipa dnsrecordattr-mod --append location --lat-deg=INT --lat-min=INT
>>>>>> --lat-sec=FLOAT --lat-dir=ENUM --lon-deg=INT --lon-min=INT
>>>>>> --lon-sec=FLOAT --lon-dir=ENUM --alt=FLOAT --h-precision=FLOAT
>>>>>> --v-precision=FLOAT
>>>>>> And to remove it
>>>>>> ipa dnsrecordattr-mod --remove location --lat-deg=INT --lat-min=INT
>>>>>> --lat-sec=FLOAT --lat-dir=ENUM --lon-deg=INT --lon-min=INT
>>>>>> --lon-sec=FLOAT --lon-dir=ENUM --alt=FLOAT --h-precision=FLOAT
>>>>>> --v-precision=FLOAT
>>>>> So if user would want to remove a LOC record, he would have to pass all
>>>>> these attributes to refer which attribute value to remove?
>>>> I think that is the case anyway.  Since a DNS record is really just an
>>>> multivalue attribute,   you would now have to do  a dns-record-mod
>>>> with the list of all LOC records that you don't want to delete.  I
>>>> used this as an example because it is the most complex case.
>>>> Just thinking it through...I'm not certain I like the "one command per
>>>> record type"  as it changes a lot of other assumptions.  DNS is a
>>>> wierd beast already.
>>>> I've spent a lot of time on the DNS ui, and it is pretty tricky  to
>>>> get right.  I'm trying to balance the PI against efficient usage.
>>>> What we really need for the fields is a way to specify the format for
>>>> a given field, much like the format strings used for group names.  For
>>>> example, the LOC  record  is really
>>>> <owner>   <TTL>   <class>   LOC d1 [m1 [s1]] {"N"|"S"}  d2 [m2 [s2]]
>>>> {"E"|"W"}
>>>>                           alt["m"] [siz["m"]     [hp["m"] [vp["m"]]]]
>>>> And all the WebUI needs is a way to specify that format  to validate.
>>> Can we use augeas for this?
>>> Augeas lenses use this kind of the validation and there is python
>>> binding so may be we should use augeas as an inspiration or ask for an
>>> augeas Javascript solution?
>> We can't. Augeas knows how to manipulate config files and only that,
>> there is no API for anything else.
> Some time ago I wrote a patch to extend Augeas to operate on arbitrary
> strings. I never had time to push it upstream, but I think I still have
> is somewhere.
> Not sure if this approach would help us anyway, we would still have to
> wait until this feature made it to RHEL and solve the JS bindings as
> well

Yes I was thinking about this path at least as an inspiration.

> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to