On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 02:21:58PM +0000, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Also, this approach wouldn't work well with respect to
multiple domains
> with different schemas.
>
> Jan's proposal, which I like, was to change the ldap_user_extra
> attribute syntax from:
> ldap_user_extra_attrs = ldap_attr_name1, ldap_attr_name2
>
> to:
> ldap_user_extra_attrs = ldap_attr_name1:sysdb_attr_name1,
ldap_attr_name2:sysdb_attr_name2
>
> The sysdb_attr_name would not be mandatory, if the sysdb name was omitted,
> then the back end would save the attribute verbatim.
>
> If there was a conflict between the name the user chose (or the original
> LDAP attribute name), the SSSD would throw an error.
I like this a lot, please do it.
Although I wonder, should the order be the reverse ?
I think of it as assignments so mentally I would visualize them as:
ldap_user_extra_attrs = internal_name_1:ldap_name_1, internal_name_2:ldap_name_2
How about
ldap_user_extra_attrs = internal_name_1=ldap_name_1, internal_name_2=ldap_name_2
then?
--
Jan Pazdziora | adelton at #ipa*, #brno
Principal Software Engineer, Identity Management Engineering, Red Hat