On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:47:18 +0200 Martin Kosek mkosek@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/05/2014 02:36 PM, John Dennis wrote:
On 08/05/2014 08:00 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
Thanks to both for information. We indeed do not plan to investigate managing users and IdM components (services, certificates, users, RBAC, OTP, ...) at this point, we mostly care about deployment and deployment status of servers, replicas and clients. From the references above, it seems our best show may be to "invent" the model ourselves, potentially based on available, though not developed existing DMTF models. Martin
Fair enough, you just want to deploy IPA via CIM for the moment. But don't forget CIM has already defined a structure to represent services and more importantly classes of services. The question is are you going to try and fit into the model the governing standards body (DMTF) has defined or are you going to ignore it and roll your own incompatible *proprietary* non-standard implementation.
I think that we should at least try to go the right way and only fall back to non-standard implementation when we could not go this way.
If the DMTF model doesn't fit your use case well, just ignore it. Don't try too hard to implement it. You may try to find out if anybody is actually implementing the model you choose. If not... What's the point in trying to be compatible when there is nothing to be compatible with? Being first is no big win for you here. Might be a loss for your users if you make too many usability compromises just to conform to an useless standard.
Regards,