Dmitri Pal <dpal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2011 11:00 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> I do not like this approach, especially if done for a single option
> among many other similar one, it makes the configuration file very odd.
>
> Besides this is for feature parity with nss_ldap and there admins are
> already use to something like ldap_<map>_search_base = a?b?c
> I think we should maintain the convetion (I do not like it too much, but
> it is a convention).
This is ugly. I do not like it. And it creates a bad presence of the
unpredictable key names that can't be described in grammar or will make
grammar for validation extremely complex.
We have streamlined a lot of things and changed a lot of options to make
them more usable. I do not see why we should follow the old style. It is
a one time operation and creating additional search sections seems
logical to me.
I agree. The old style might help admins with the change from nss_ldap, but
what about the rest of them who didn't use it? IMO the ldap_<map>_search_base
with delimiters is confusing.
I would suggest presenting the two options to the user community on
FreeIPA list and asking for their opinion.
Good idea
Jan