[SSSD] Design Discussion: Domains, users and groups over D-Bus

Pavel Březina pbrezina at redhat.com
Wed Jan 7 12:39:03 UTC 2015


On 01/07/2015 12:00 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:02:39AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>> On 01/06/2015 11:10 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:26:22PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/DBusResponder
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have take the following tikcet that is about implementing D-Bus calls for
>>>> domains, users and groups. I have some questions.
>>>>
>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2150
>>>>
>>>> *List and Find methods interface*
>>>> At this moment we implement all List* and Find* methods on
>>>> /org/freedesktop/sssd/infopipe and org.freedesktop.sssd.infopipe interface.
>>>>
>>>> The patches I sent today enables having support for different interfaces on
>>>> /path and /path/*, therefore we can implement the methods as:
>>>>
>>>> /infopipe/Users infopipe.Users.ListUsers()
>>>> /infopipe/Users/$UID user specific methods and properties
>>>>
>>>> instead of:
>>>> /infopipe infopipe.ListUsers()
>>>> /infopipe/Users/$UID user specific methods and properties
>>>>
>>>> I think it make sense. Is this something we want?
>>>
>>> Yes, I like this suggestion better, too.
>>
>> Do we agree on the following interface schema? Or do you have other
>> suggestions?
>>
>> /ifp/Users   ifp.Users
>> /ifp/Users/* ifp.Users.User
>>
>> Methods will drop 'Users' keyword. I.e. ifp.Users.List() instead of
>> ifp.Users.ListUsers().
>>
>> I though about ifp.User for the subtree but I don't really like when
>> interface name differs only in the ending 's'. That is quite error prone to
>> me.
>
> What about changing infopipe to ifp? Or is that a typo?

I just wanted to shorten the name for the purpose of this conversation 
and avoid writing the whole org.freedesktop.sssd.infopipe. Sorry, I 
thought its obvious.




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list