On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:40:20 -0500 Simo Sorce <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:57:34 +0100 > Ludwig Krispenz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 12/16/2014 03:22 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:33:41 +0100 > > > Ludwig Krispenz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Simo, > > >> > > >> one thing is not quite clear to me: do you want a domain level > > >> per feature or a global domain level or both ? > > > The Domain Level is global. > > > I described a "Feature Version" that is published by feature. > > > The Feature Versions just state what is available they do not > > > determine what is the current overall Domain Level. > > Ok, just to confirm my understanding. > > > > - we have one domain level. > > Yes. > > > - each (new) plugin or compoment has to define its minimal domain > > level and execute only features covered by this level > > Each plugin may have different behavior based on the domain level it > is enabled, however the highest level is open-ended. IE a plugin must > not stop working if it see a higher level than was known when it was > built. > > SO a plugin may have an if/else like this: > > if (level < MIN_DOM_LEVEL) { > return; > } else if (level < XYZ_DOM_LEVEL) { > /* do something */ > } else { > /* do something else */ > } > > The last branch is always there unless we are going to stop using a > plugin and intentionally want it to stop working once the domain level > is raised past the XYZ_DOM_LEVEL (whatever that will be). > > > - in addition, these plugins have to expose their (plugin) version > > on each server, allowing checks for setting the domain level > > Yes, > we can refine this part though, for example each plugin could publish > the minimum domain level is supports instead of a version number if > that is useful or easier to manage. But this is not sufficient to do > checks, we still need to know, in some cases, also what is the > maximum level known for some plugins (but not for others), so we'll > still need a detailed list of things to check. > > If this is too complex however, maybe we can simply publish a > "supported domain level" number per server, and deal internally within > a server on how to publish it. A "supported domain levels" range really, so we can say IPA v8.0 support level 2-3-4 but not 0 or 1 or 5 (which is supported only by v9.0 Actually, I think I will go and change the proposal this way, it will make it much easier to deal with for checks. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
