On 6/3/2015 1:41 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 06/02/2015 11:22 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2015, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
I think ideally the
client and server code should be in separate files (so they can be deployed
separately too), but the framework doesn't seem to allow that.
This exactly the case we have to use here and we are using that in
trusts case as well -- some code has to run on server only and shouldn't
cause to install Samba related packages on the client. This is because
IPA client is actually using the same IPA plugins that server uses, to
have access to the API calls metadata and client-side callbacks are
defined in the same place where server-side callbacks are. It is IPA
framework design, so we have to use what we have.
This is planned to be changed BTW, when we start with the "Thin Client" concept
and have different code/plugins for FreeIPA server side and client side.
Is there a ticket for this?
In other words, it is not necessarily an evil under conditions we are
Having to use the same plugins for client and server is a framework
limitation/poor design. Having to use conditional imports to work around
the limitation is a bad programming practice. The fact that trust plugin
has to implement a similar workaround is not a justification, it just
shows that the problem is not vault-specific.
Endi S. Dewata
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code