On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 10:23 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote: > On 01/14/2013 08:45 PM, John Dennis wrote: > > On 01/14/2013 12:56 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >> On 14.1.2013 18:50, Petr Viktorin wrote: > >>> Ah, yes, you've discovered my ultimate goal: rewriting the whole > >>> framefork :) > >> > >> It would seem we share the same ultimate goal, sir! :-) > > > > Well it's reassuring I'm not alone in my frustration with elements of > > the framework. I thought it was just me :-) > > > > I have one other general complaint about the framework: > > > > Too much magic! > > > > What do I mean by magic? Things which spring into existence at run time > > for which there is no static definition. I've spent (wasted) significant > > amounts of time trying to figure out how something gets instantiated and > > initialized. These things don't exist in the static code, you can't > > search for them because they are synthetic. You can see these things > > being referenced but you'll never find a class definition or __init__() > > method or assignment to a specific object attribute. It's all very very > > clever but at the same time very obscure. If you just use the framework > > in a cookie-cutter fashion this has probably never bothered you, but if > > you have modify what the framework provides it can be difficult. > > > > But I don't want to carp on the framework too much without giving credit > > to Jason first. His mandate was to produce a pluggable framework that > > was robust, extensible, and supported easy plugin authorship. Jason was > > dedicated, almost maniacal in his attention to detail and best > > practices. He also had to design most of this himself (the rest of the > > team was heads down on other things at the time). It has mostly stood > > the test of time. It's pretty hard to anticipate the pain points, that's > > something only experience with system can give you down the road, which > > is where we find ourselves now. > > > > +1. > It's easy to criticize in hindsight, and I have great respect for the > framework and its author. > Nevertheless, software grows over time and we need to balance bolting > things on with improving the foundations, so that we don't get stuck in > a maze of workarounds in a few years.
Can someone summarize how big a change this would be ? I do understand the general discussion, but I have not been involved deeply enough in the framework code to tell. Also how much would this conflict with the proposed LDAP change ? Do we have a way to slowly change stuff or will it require big all-or-nothing changes ? Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel