On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 18:47 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27:13AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 15:09 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:29:48AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 09:46 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm all for generic shared code, but then it would sound like
even
> > > > LDAP
> > > > provider for instance supports the dynamic updates..
> > >
> > > This would be a positive feature imo.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but I was trying to say that given their provider-agnostic names,
> > the options might confuse the user into setting them in an LDAP provider
> > and expeciting them to work, while in reality only AD and IPA would be
> > implemented.
>
> I think it should a generic provider and AD and IPA should just have
> different defaults, like with many other things.
>
OK, but we need to document that setting these options only has effect
for the AD and IPA providers.
Any reason why we cannot make it work with arbitrary backends ?
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York