On 31/01/2014 18:57, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 01/31/2014 08:17 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Are you saying that we should split our development in two:

(1) smart proxy, exposing the RESTful interface, developed on the
basis of [8]

(2) actual ConnId connector, dealing with the proxy above for
implementing its own logic
Correct

If so, could you please point to the source code of [8]?
Will then this eventually become part of FreeIPA?
Quite soon. I would leave it to the team to suggest whether user and
host provisioning smart proxies should be a same smart proxy or
different so that they can be installed independently from each other
but use the same approach. IMO haveing them separately but share the
same code and approach will be more valuable to the project. But I am
open to other ideas here.

I am actually not sure if it is "lightweight" connector could actually
be better than a "loaded" connector (e.g. without proxy), from a
deployment point of view, unless you are saying either that (a) a
smart proxy is already available that can be reused
The idea can be reused as a starting point. IMO the easiest would be to
look at the patches and use same machinery but implement different commands.

or that (b) incorporating the smart proxy that we are going to develop
into FreeIPA will easily happen.
If done right: i.e. following process and style then yes.

Please become familiar with the coding style [9] page on the wiki and
other contributer guidelines [10].
Also having a design page created as a result of the preliminary
investigation would go a long way towards acceptance and quality of the
feature.

We will gladly guide you on the way if you have specific questions

[...]

Ok then, we'll do it as follows.

We are currently experimenting with FreeIPA, to get familiar with technology and options; once we will be confident enough to start the actual work on the connector, we will check the status of the smart proxy patches from [11].

If the implementation status will be close to be ready and about to be included in the official distribution, we will follow the suggestions above and develop a REST-based connector.

Otherwise, we will instead specialize the CMD connector [12] to feature the FreeIPA command-line interface (as suggested at the beginning of this thread). There will be potentially need, in this case, to include the ConnId connector server into the Syncope deployment architecture, but this is a supported pattern.

Thanks for your support.
Regards.

[2] http://tirasa.github.io/ConnId/
[3] http://java.net/projects/identityconnectors/
[4] https://github.com/Tirasa/ConnIdFreeIPABundle
[5] 
http://tirasa.github.io/ConnId/apidocs/base/org/identityconnectors/framework/spi/operations/package-summary.html
[6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-users/2013-January/msg00109.html

[7] http://www.freeipa.org/page/Documentation
[8] http://www.freeipa.org/page/V3/Smart_Proxy
[1] http://syncope.apache.org/
[9] http://www.freeipa.org/page/Coding_Style
[10] http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
[11] https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4128
[12] https://github.com/Tirasa/ConnIdCMDBundle
[13] https://connid.atlassian.net/wiki/display/BASE/Connector+Servers

--
Francesco Chicchiriccò

Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/

Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PPMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/

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

Reply via email to