[SSSD] [PATCH] sss_config: alter configuration file

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Apr 24 08:12:36 UTC 2014


On (23/04/14 15:32), Dmitri Pal wrote:
>On 04/22/2014 04:29 AM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>Hi,
>>I'm sending some patches that I'll use for OpenLMI provider. It
>>supports few modifications of sssd.conf through augeas.
>>
>>For the moment, I think we should not bound to any particular API
>>so even though I made it a separate object, I don't have any
>>intentions to make it publicly usable library.
>>
>>This code will be used from D-Bus responder. I may extend the API
>>if needed.
>
>
>I have a conceptual problem with this approach. Sorry to throw the
>wrench when a lot of work has been done. But I have not seen this
>coming. I read there thesis and there was nothing about augeas there,
>actually there was nothing about the architecture of the actual
>management at all. That was one of the parts of my feedback.
>
>So why augeas?
>
>I thought that we will use the python API instead of doing it in C.
>That was the whole reason why i have not added this same capability
>to manipulate the configuration and save it.
>
>In general I think that if we want to do changes in C we should stick
>to libini_config and use it to make the modifications.
>I see several reasons for that approach:
>* we want one place to merge files and make modifications, if there
>are two unrelated pieces of code that do that we will have problems.
>We already have two we actually adding third: python, ding-libs merge
>code and now augeas
>* we want to rely on the syntax checking in future. When this part is
>added you can not only validate the data coming from the config file
>but would also prevent modifications that can potentially lead to
>misconfiguration because you are sticking a logical value instead of
>string or number and vice verse.
>
>So I am strongly against bringing augeas without a higher level
>strategy here. I can see bringing augeas only if we try to
>consolidate on it in the long run but I am not sure it is the idea
>due to the two points above.
>
>I would say that adding the functionality to ding-libs is pretty
>trivial. I can tun around a patch pretty quickly if we decide to do
>it this way.
>Something to discuss first though...
>
I will be fine with using augeas if it is optional.
In next versions, it can be replaced with libini_config.

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list