On 05/11/2015 03:50 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> Dne 11.5.2015 v 15:34 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
>> On 05/11/2015 03:18 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>> Dne 6.5.2015 v 09:29 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
>>>> Hello,
>>>> as already discussed in December [1], we will need to implement domain 
>>>> levels
>>>> in FreeIPA 4.2 to make sure we can manage the replication agreement by
>>>> Topology
>>>> plugin.
>>>> I created a ticket for this feature [3] and linked it with Simo's design. 
>>>> The
>>>> proposed scope for the feature is written in the ticket itself. Tomas
>>>> agreed he
>>>> would work on this.
>>>> The first consumer is Ludwig's topology plugin. Seeing Ludwig's initial
>>>> patches
>>>> [4], I suspect he chose a different format (major/minor) for the domain 
>>>> level
>>>> value, but as we discussed in [2], it will rather be a numerical value, 
>>>> raised
>>>> only when needed. This is something for Tomas and Ludwig to coordinate
>>>> together.
>>>> I am not sure if Custodia work will need this, maybe the new
>>>> ipa-replica-install would just check if Custodia is there or not and not
>>>> decide
>>>> on Domain Levels... we will see.
>>>> The design page does not list the actual API, but I expect it to be very
>>>> simple
>>>> for now, maybe just
>>>> $ ipa domainlevel-show
>>>> $ ipa domainlevel-raise NUMBER
>>> I would think
>>> $ ipa domain-show
>>> $ ipa domain-set-level NUMBER
>>> because "domain level" does not sound like an object, but rather a "level"
>>> property of a "domain" object.
>> I think the point here was that the Domain Level is a separate LDAP object 
>> with
>> just that value. So the naming seemed pretty self-explanatory and consistent
>> to me.
> That seems to me like an implementation detail rather than something against
> which to model the API. (Come on, singleton object with a single property?)

IIRC, that was the point. To have this value in a single LDAP object without
other settings, so that components can simply "watch" this object or have
syncrepl on it, without receiving false positives (as they would have with for
example "config-*" object).

>> With using just "domain-*" we are blocking ourselves for the time when real
>> "Domain" object shows up.
> I don't see why it should.
> Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this, except I like "set" better than
> "raise".

I liked the raise more as it does not give people the hopes that domain level
can be lowered once it was raised :-)

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to