On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 12:18 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > Hi, > > I need your feedback on a problem with implementing the topology plugin: > marking an replication agreement, this seems to be a never ending story > > We want o mark an agreement when it is creqated by the plugin or put > under control of the plugin by raising the domain level. > The first idea was to rename the agreement, but this failed because DS > does not support MODRDN on the cn=config backend and on second thought > using a naming convetion on the rdn of the agreement entry seems to be > not the best idea. > The next approach was to use an attribute in the the agreement itself, > and I just used description, which is multivalued and I added a > description value "managed agreement ....". > This works, but didn't get Simo's blessing and we agreed just to add a > new objectclass "ipaReplTopoManagedAgreement", which could be used > without extenting the core replication schema. > I think this is the best solution, but unfortunately it fails. > replication code is called when an agreement is modified and it accepts > only modifications for a defined set of replication agreement attributes > - other mods are rejected with UNWILLING_TO_PERORM. > > I think we could enhance DS to accept a wider range of changes to the > replication agreement (it already does it for winsync agreements), but > this would add a new dependency on a specific DS version where this > change is included. > > > Do you think this dependency is acceptable (topology plugin is targeted > to 4.2) ? or do we need to find another clever solution or use the not > so nice "description" way ?
A dependency on a specific version of DS is just fine IMO. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
