On 07/25/2016 11:07 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 11:04 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 10:51 -0400, Ben Lipton wrote:
On 07/25/2016 05:07 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 10:50 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Anyway, my main grudge is that the transformation rules shouldn't
really
be stored on and processed by the server. The server should know the
*what* (mapping rules), but not the *how* (transformation rules). The
*how* is an implementation detail and does not change in time, so
there's no benefit in handling it on the server. It should be handled
exclusively on the client, which I believe would also make the whole
thing more robust (it would not be possible for a bug on the server
to
break all the clients).
W/o entering in specific +1 as a general comment on this.
If it can be done on the client, probably better be done there.

Simo.

My thinking was that while the CSR generation must be done on the
client, the retrieval and formatting of the data for the CSR should be
done on the server, so that the functionality is available to all
consumers of the API (ipa command-line, certmonger, Web UI, something
else?). I imagine it would be relatively easy to move the formatting
stuff into the ipa CLI, but all the other clients would then need an
implementation of their own, and so we'd need to worry about
interpreting the templates and generating CSRs in multiple different
languages. It's true that as it stands a bug on the server could break
all the clients, but on the other hand there's only one implementation
to maintain, rather than a different one in each client.

But maybe I'm not seeing the proper priorities here. Perhaps it's more
of a problem because clients are easier to update with bugfixes than the
server? Or maybe the preference for the client is for scalability
reasons? Could you tell me more about why you prefer a client
implementation?

(And yeah, everything here carries a disclaimer of "I probably can't
make any large changes in the remaining 3 weeks of my internship," but I
think it's still good to know and document what the limitations of the
current implementation are.)

Thanks,
Ben
You do not want to have to upgrade the server because tool foobarx
became suddenly the most used. Client tools may change over the time as
well, so if you try to generate stuff on the server you may end up
having to support multiple version with little way of knowing which
version that is.

It is true that multiple client would have to implement "something", but
that something could be a python library+binary that other tools/script
can call or pipe through as needed.
Note, from my pov the code should be more or less the same except it
would run on the client rather than the server. Templates would be
delivered via the same package that delivers the tool/module and admins
would have the option to add more locally, though I am not against
sharing templates via the server if we think that is a good idea in
general (but the same issue vs tools changing and rendering templates
broken with one or another version remain).

Simo.

Ok, I definitely see your point here about making it easier to support the shifting versions of the helper utilities. Pulling the formatting out into a standalone binary that could be used by different clients seems achievable. The Web UI wouldn't be able to use it, I guess, but as of now there's no web UI for this feature anyway. I'll make sure this is at least documented as a desirable modification.

--
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