Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a):
On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
Hello,
it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be
number 2, not 1.
We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe
that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and
actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1)
Patch is attached.
Hello,
The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of
the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in
dse.ldif)
I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the
DomainLevel is 2.0 or more.
If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate
itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger.
Let's wait for Ludwig feedback.
thanks
thierry
My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We
already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I
do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support
for that anyway.
So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is
the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid.
I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to
bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers)
why we have two "ones" which mean something else.
Code-wise it is just an integer.
Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another
incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test
(instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level).
+1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0,
because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not
support anymore, right?
If you really want to avoid unforeseen issues rather go and get rid of
"major.minor" logic we have in the topology plugin right now :-)
--
Jan Cholasta
--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
