Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 02/14/2014 03:43 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 02/14/2014 12:07 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On 01/28/2014 09:35 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/23/2014 02:17 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
...
The URL endpoint /ipa/rest suggests that if we implement a
complete REST
API for IPA it would live here. Is the API supposed to be
future-compatible? (The API itself seems to be a good subset of a
complete REST API, but can we easily add an frontend with
authentication, i18n, etc. here later, and keep the limitations for
unauthenticated access?)
Perhaps /ipa/smartproxy would be a better choice?
It was future-proofing. I'm fine with changing the URI, it is
probably a good
thing to save that name.
+1 for moving to /ipa/smartproxy/rest, we will want a complete REST
interface
in ipa/rest/ in the future. I rather opened a ticket to track that:
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4168
Martin
I think I've addressed most of Petr's suggestions with the exception
of the
global ipa handle and I stuck with *args, **options as this is pretty
much
standard in IPA calls.
The gssproxy.conf.snippet just makes it easier to copy/paste. I can
drop it if
you want, I suppose it is duplication.
Note that I ran this past the Foreman design again and as a result added
another interface, /realm. It was my understanding that this Foreman
design
wasn't set into stone but a patch is working its way through their
system that
followed the spec so I went ahead and added it. It isn't a big deal,
the Host()
class handles it out of the box.
I also updated the design page a bit to reflect some of the changes
made.
Right now there are no plans to backport python-kerberos to F20.
rob
I will leave functional testing to others, I just read the code. I am
still
quite concerned about the positioning, naming and "branding" of this
feature.
1) Package name
Currently, it is a host/hostgroup smartproxy, primarily for Foreman
integration
use case.
Packaging it as freeipa-server-smartproxy may be ok, but only if we
plan to use
this proxy for all other projects. I.e. if we one day implement user
smartproxy, it would need to be part of this otherwise it would lead
to strange
organization, like having freeipa-server-smartproxy and
freeipa-server-smartproxy-users packages. Maybe it should be named
differently?
freeipa-server-foreman-smartproxy
freeipa-server-smartproxy-hosts
2) ipa-rest stuff
We have ipa-rest script, ipa-rest.conf, ipa-rest.service, ipa-rest man.
However, I have the same concerns as above. This is too general and it
may
conflict with future core server needs (like when we implement core
IPA REST
interface - #4168). Let us name it consistently with package name:
ipa-smartproxy.service
ipa-smartproxy-hosts.service
ipa-foreman-smartproxy.service
The same for binary, man, ...
3) Man pages
The same point, you brand it as "IPA REST server". This is too general.
To sum it up - let us chose one name/brand of this feature and let's
use it
consistently in FreeIPA infrastructure - subpackage name, subdirectory
in git,
subdirectory in ipatests, man, conf, script, names in man pages.
Martin
+1
I think it should be "host"
ipa-host-smartproxy
then we will be able to add other smart proxies and then combine them
into one ipa-smartproxy package later if needed.
This would imply we actually run separate servers for the various
commands. Given that right now we're focused on just the Foreman use
cases I think ipa-smartproxy is sufficient.
For our purposes the smartproxy is just a thin wrapper around the IPA
API. It is extensible for our needs, we just don't need to yet. But if
we did, we'd do so within the cherrypy server and everything would be
self-contained.
rob
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
