[SSSD] Multi-line values in INI

Dmitri Pal dpal at redhat.com
Thu Apr 15 16:21:49 UTC 2010


Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Dmitri Pal <dpal at redhat.com> wrote:
>   
>> Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On 04/15/2010 11:07 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 09:23 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Can we please come at this issue from the right direction? The reason
>>>>>> that this is even being debated is because we learned of another program
>>>>>> (certmonger) that is using INI files to store binary data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> In conclusion: I think attempting to solve the newline/escape problem in
>>>>>> libini_config itself is both too complex and too limiting. It is more
>>>>>> complexity being added to the libini_config than a simple INI file
>>>>>> parser needs to have, and by implementing any particular approach to
>>>>>> managing the data, we are limiting is usability to only those use-cases
>>>>>> that we can come up with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Not that I am really part of the SSSD project, but +1 from me anyway.
>>>>> Very sensible reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Actually, input from outside our project is probably more valuable. We
>>>> intend for libini_config to be available for use by any project that
>>>> wants it.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Alright well corner cases and "magic" handling of multiline stuff
>>> seems wrong. Be dumb about it and let the caller of your library
>>> figure some of that out. If someone wants to store binary data in an
>>> ini file, let them. That seems slightly insane, but it is their app.
>>> That doesn't mean you should hack up your library because your users
>>> want to do stupid things.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Well I generally disagree with the approach. I think that if I sell a gun
>> it should be suitable for shooting yourself too (big time).
>> But OK. This discussions boils down to "be dumb and
>> not handle more than you need to" and everybody seems to agree with this.
>> Fine, it will be what Steve suggests then: no escapes and RFC822.
>>
>> I still feel that we should be nicer to "crazy" people and let them
>> "abuse" what
>> we offer and offer more convenient options with which they can shoot
>> themselves
>> in all sorts of different ways. :-)
>>
>> But I will comply.
>> Thank you for your time and input!
>>     
>
> It is just a difference of design philosophy. Much like in the ruby
> community Ruby On Rails includes everything and tries to be magical
> which makes it slow vs the merb approach of small, light, and fast.
> Neither are wrong but merely different.
>
> Thanks for being pragmatic and please keep on writing awesome
> software. As a user I can't thank you enough.
>
>   
Thanks for the warm words. You really made my day!

-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.


-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list