On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 13:56 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote: > On 04/10/2012 01:48 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote: [snip] > The use case I would see is the extensibility. Say a customer wants to > extend a schema and add an attribute X to the user object. He would > still be able to manage users using CLI without writing a plugin for > the new attribute. Yes plugin is preferred but not everybody would go > for it. So in absence of the plugin we can't do validation but we still > should function and be able to deal with this attribute via CLI (and UI > if this attribute is enabled for UI via UI configuration). > > I am generally against dropping this interface. But expectations IMO > should be: > 1) If the attribute is managed by us with setattr and friends it should > behave in the same way as via the direct add/mod/del command > 2) If attribute is not managed it should not provide any guarantees and > act in the same way as via LDAP > > Hope this helps.
I agree with your points, that's what I was trying to say in my previous mail. I think that all the grief is caused by expectation 1) which is broken with current setattr options. If we fix that (preferably in 3.0), I would keep this API. Martin _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel