On 07/27/2016 11:09 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:03:34AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 07/26/2016 04:19 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>> On 07/26/2016 01:19 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>> On 07/25/2016 02:12 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> this patches makes the sssctl commands more similar to
>>>> ipa tool commands. I also think this pattern makes it
>>>> easier to remember the commands.
>>>>
>>>> Note that in the future, there will be more user-*
>>>> group-* and netgroup-* commands (like seed for user,
>>>> list of all etc.)
>>>>
>>>> Comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Michal
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> ok, it looks like a good idea. When touching the code, can you also
>>> convert sss_override command to use the macro instead? And I think it
>>> may be nice to also add a macro for command sentinel i.e. for {NULL,
>>> ...}.
>>>
>>> I'm not very fond of renaming local-data-* to cache-* so it doesn't
>>> imply that we backup the whole cache content. We only backup and restore
>>> data that are local to the client and not present in LDAP. Currently
>>> only local overrides, but it may include local users and groups in the
>>> future.
When we have the files provider there would
be a cache as well. Moreover, we store secrets now. The restore command
backs up all *.ldb files, right?
This is how I understood it at first, but the current backup
and restore only work for local overrides. But as Pavel mentioned,
it may work for local users and groups in the future
(id_provider=local). My original confusion was that I also
thought it backs-up and restores all ldb files, which is
not the case.
>>>
>>> * cache-backup Backup local data
>>> * cache-restore Restore local data from backup
>>>
>>
>> That was confusion on my side. I thought local data means
>> entire cache. In that case I would propose topic name "local"
>> for actions that work with data that is not present on remote
>> server.
>>
>> local-backup
>> local-restore
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> New patch is attached. I also added
>> patch for missing gettext macro (did not want
>> to hide this change in the first patch).
>>
>> Michal
>
> I'd still stick with local-data-backup and local-data-restore, what do
> others thing? But otherwise ack.
I'm not sure, on one hand the admins would think 'cache' but on the
other hand, if we save and restore all cache data, the we operate on
more than the cache..