On 02/14/2014 05:07 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 02/14/2014 04:52 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 02/14/2014 03:09 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
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

Are you saying that we will just extend this smart proxy for other use
cases like users and others?


It all depends on the use case. If we're talking Foreman then yes. If
something else, then we'll discuss it at the time, but it still may be
able to be included.

The IPA Foreman smart proxy is distinguished by a couple of things:

- listens on port 8090, only on localhost
- is unauthenticated
- uses the /realm URI namespace

I'm exposing hosts and hostgroups as well, but per the spec that
Dominic came up with only /realm/:domain is required and affects only
hosts.

We can stick this behind Apache to get authentication, even on a
specific URI if we want/need to, but the basic REST stuff can still be
handled by cherrypy.

We'll need to balance complexity of mixing things vs the complexity of
code duplication in multiple servers, unless we come up with some sort
of REST server class where we just instantiate whatever we need. But
that is for the future.

rob

But if it is specific for Foreman then it should have a generic name. I
agree with Martin here.

I have the feeling we're in basic agreement.

smartproxy is the Foreman name. I'm not pushing back against renaming, I'll have a new patch out shortly doing just that. I'm just pushing back against renaming it too deeply. I'm going with ipa-smartproxy.

rob
The point is that smartproxy is a good name to be reused outside foreman. So rather than assuming that "smartproxy" is foreman specific we can go with:
host proxy or host smart proxy - for this use case
and then
user proxy or user smart proxy - for use cases like User provisioning systems
and then
DNS proxy or DNS smart proxy - ...
and then
DHCP proxy or DHCP smart proxy - ...
and so on

We need to establish a good pattern that we will be able to easily extend.




--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.


-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/



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

Reply via email to