On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 13:12 +0300, Ilias Stamatis wrote: > Hello, Hey mate, > > I'm going to add support for the memberOf plugin into the dsconf tool. > However, because this is going to be the first plugin to be configurable > through lib389, design decisions will affect all future plugins to be > supported. > > I'd like thoughts on which approach would be more convenient for an admin. > > Right now, there's an initial general design for all plugins here: > https://pagure.io/lib389/blob/master/f/lib389/cli_conf/plugin.py > > This suggests that we do things the following way: > > 1. "dsconf instance plugin enable" and then it prompts us to enter the dn > of the plugin to enable. > 2. "dsconf instance plugin config" and then it prompts again for a dn and > displays configuration options *specific* to that plugin > > I think it might be more handy to avoid additional prompts and directly do > things like the following: > > dsconf instance plugin memberof enable > dsconf instance plugin memberof fixup I'm really happy with this syntax. We could make it: dsconf instance memberof enable And leave "plugin" for generic plugins? > > However, this way we will end up with very long commands. > eg. > dsconf instance plugin memberof config modify "memberofattr" "memberOf2" I don't think we would use this. Perhaps: dsconf instance memberof config # Would show config dsconf instance memberof config <attr> # Show just that attr dsconf instance memberof config <attr> <value> # Set this value I wonder now about multivalue attrs for this. I can see why you are worried about it getting a bit long. Something that would help is: dsconf instance memberof config edit Which wuold be similar to ldapvi and open $EDITOR with the entry, then commits the diff when you change it. That would certainly make this easier. For the cli, I think perhaps the long setting may be unavoidable because we need to express add/mod/rep/delete. We could likely take a cisco like view and do; dsconf instance memberof config a <attr> <value> where add is shortened to the unique value. IIRC argparse supports this. > > which is huge. > > With the second approach it's easier to write scripts based on dsconf > though. > > Any thoughts on this? > Thanks for your really thoughtful email about this! -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
