On 03/18/2015 02:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
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.
thanks, I'll enhance DS then
Ludwig

Simo.


--
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

Reply via email to