On 02/17/2014 04:13 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 02/17/2014 02:33 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 02/17/2014 01:21 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On 02/14/2014 11:26 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
+1, this was exactly my goal. It is easy to name and organize things
now,
difficult to do when it is live upstream and/or integrated with
Foreman.
I think the key for the right naming is a fact if this is really
specific to
Foreman or it is a truly general design usable also in other use
cases. If
Foreman-specific, I would go with freeipa-server-smartproxy-host or
similar.
If general, we can go with
freeipa-server-proxy-host
freeipa-server-proxy-user
freeipa-server-proxy-dhcp
The proxies may share the framework and only expose the requested
part of the
tree - which in advance gives you an option for an API
separation, as
compared
to general freeipa-server-smartproxy.
I still don't get the point of this. Are you proposing having 3
different servers, each providing a unique service? Or one service
that one can turn on/off features, or something else? Do you envision
this as 3 separate subpackages?
There is no "framework" in my current patch, it is a cherrypy server
that exposes parts of IPA on a given URI. It is the thinnest of
layers.
Then it seems to make sense to have 3 different packages that can be
optionally coninstalled and would probably share the same principal,
keytab and local REST API socket/port.
Well, what you are designing is a central framework with plugins. What
I designed is a quick-and-dirty get something up quickly. We need to
pick one. The plugable method is going to require a fair bit of
rework, though it will potentially pay dividends in the future.
I think that we can start where you are but drive towards this
architecture via refactoring. But we need to pick the right name now.
Even if the architecture is not there yet we should name the package in
such way that it does not preclude us from moving towards a clean
architecture I described during the next iteration.
Just having a hard time seeing the value. This would be like making
each of the IPA plugins a separate package and somehow installing them
individually.
To do this you'd need at least 2 packages, a high level one with the
"framework" and then a separate one for each data type.
This could also be achieved, and likely more cleanly, without all
these extra packages, as a simple configuration file. Once a package,
always a package.
Maybe I'm too close to the problem, but to me this is a
Foreman-specific solution. The "smartproxy" is a Foreman creation, I
don't know that anything else is using it. If you want a RESTful
server, then we enable REST in IPA directly, but selectively enabling
and disabling APIs is not something we've done before. It has been
controlled by ACIs instead.
rob
We are trying to predict future here. Say we release it as you suggest.
Tomorrow we point someone upstream who wants to add users to IPA from a
similar proxy to this implementation and say use this as a model.
And then Rich needs the same but for DNS for Designate.
What would be the best? Rob if you knew that tomorrow two other
developers will create similar proxies for users and DNS would you
change anything? Would you provide some guidelines to them?
If you are close to the problem you should be able to at least tell
them: "copy and paste" vs. "add more APIs to the same proxy".
If your recommendation is copy and paste then I suspect there will be
challenges of running these proxies on the same machine - they will
collide on ports and sockets. If we say "extend" shouldn't we use a more
generic name?
--
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
