On 03/30/2011 07:34 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Yes, someone will need to write the config entry, so that will need to
Nathan Kinder wrote:
On 03/30/2011 06:32 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Dmitri Pal wrote:
Please find the design for the auto membership plugin:
I have some comments and questions:
1) Is the AND functionality for inclusion criteria required?
2) How the attributes are escaped? Do they need to? Probably there
be cases when they should be escaped
3) Parsing pairs in the value as a bit of overhead. I wonder if
any way to avoid it?
4) I have concerns about the UI and CLI, do you see any good ways to
mange such entries?
Because the configuration is stored in cn=config we would need to bind
as DM to be able to manage it (unless we want to make an exception and
allow writing here. Could a bad config could prevent 389-ds from
No. Similar to a bad DNA or managed entry setup, an error would be
logged and the bad config entry would be skipped.
Ok, great. But we would still need to carve out an exception for allow
people to write in cn=config, right?
That's an interesting case. It would result in a failed modify, as we
would not be able to update the non-existent group entry. This plug-in
does not add a pointer to the user entry (that's done by the memberOf
plug-in if it is desired). The usre entry would still be consistent,
but you would have an error in the errors log about the failed modify.
I assume a restart would be needed whenever a configuration change is
Only enabling the plug-in at the top level, which we could enabled by
default. The definition entry changes would be dynamic.
What happens if the target in automembertargetgroup gets removed?
I still need to fill in the "Behavior" section in the design doc, but
this plug-in is not a referential integrity plug-in. It simply monitors
ADD operations and updates the membership accordingly. Nothing is done
for MOD, DEL, or MODRDN operations.
I was thinking more what happens if the targetgroup is deleted and a
new user is added? Will this result in a failed modify or would the
user get a member pointer to a non-existent entry, or something else?
Freeipa-users mailing list