On 04/04/12 13:54 -0400, Scott Seago wrote:
On 03/30/2012 09:50 AM, Scott Seago wrote:
>Rather than paste in the entire text, I'm just linking to the wiki
>writeup. Please read the whole thing first and if you want to
>comment on anything specific, quote it and comment on this thread.
OK I've updated to take into account feedback from Imre, Jan, Jay, and
In particular, we'll allow both LDAP and Local groups to exist
concurrently (subject to config flags, so we can still lock this down
to only one type). I've added consideration of dynamic user group
lists managed via LDAP queries, but in the 'future plans' section, as
it will probably not be included in the initial iteration.
In addition, I've noted that, subject to availability of a scheduling
infrastructure, I'd prefer the background re-sync to inline/blocking
Scott, couple minor questions/thoughts here:
* what happens if an ldap usergroup is deleted on a sync (and I
would assume all permissions for a given user that was in that group
on any objects they own as well), but nobody else owns those
objects? For example, Joes group is deleted, and he has some
deployables he created, and a few running instances. Nobod else has
access to those objects, so what happens to them (especially the
* This is probably out of scope, but I would hope we will include a
task(s) to make whatever controller changes are needed also provide
Aside from this, I think you have captured all the bits we have
discussed, and looks like a pretty workable plan to me.