John Dennis wrote:
On 01/11/2013 09:10 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Petr Viktorin wrote:
We had a small discussion off-list about how we want IPA's LDAP handling
to look in the future.
To continue the discussion publicly I've summarized the results and
added some of my own ideas to a page.
John gets credit for the overview (the mistakes & WTFs are mine).

The text is on, and echoed below.

IIRC some of the the python-ldap code is used b/c ldap2 may require a
configuration to be set up prior to working. That is one of the nice
things about the IPAdmin interface, it is much easier to create
connections to other hosts.

Good point. But I don't believe that issue affects having a common API
or a single point where LDAP data flows through. It might mean having
more than one initialization method or subclassing.

Right. We may need to decouple from api a bit. I haven't looked at this for a while but one of the problems is that api locks its values after finalization which can make things a bit inflexible. We use some nasty override code in some place but it isn't something I'd want to see spread further.


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to