On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 22:05, Luke Kanies <l...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:18, Nick Fagerlund >> <nick.fagerl...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >>> (For reference: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7783) >>> >>> In 2.7, we have both a "cert" application and a new "certificate" face- >>> based app, and they both have a "generate" action. Unfortunately, they >>> do completely different things: `puppet cert generate rhubarb.pie.lan` >>> makes a new signed certificate, and `puppet certificate generate >>> rhubarb.pie.lan --ca-location remote` submits a certificate signing >>> request to the CA. That's bad and confusing. >>> >>> I would suggest just renaming the action, but since we already have a >>> certificate_request face, I think we should move it there. (And then >>> rename it, preferably to "submit".) Does everyone agree on this call, >>> or is there a better option I've missed? >> >> I think we should build an entirely new Face for interacting with the >> certificate subsystem, which is a higher level abstraction over the >> concepts that the user is going to be familiar with. Something more >> akin to the "legacy" application than the indirection-based faces we >> currently have. >> >> That gives us a chance to build a solid abstraction without the >> separation that the indirections imply, focused on higher level >> concerns. Obviously, this will consume the underlying faces we have >> today, to achieve those results. > > That's essentially what the existing 'cert' application is.
Yup. It sure is, although the application only allows command-line interaction, not matching API accessible from Ruby. As far as I understood it, the plan was that faces-based tools would replace all the legacy applications over the next few releases. > What would you call this new face? And I assume you'd be seeing this for the > next major release, right? Probably 'cert', as it replaces the existing 'cert' application with a face offering more or less the same set of features. Part of that will derive from the details as we work out how to handle the compatibility issues if the UI isn't absolutely identical. As to scheduling, I have no strong opinion. A six month delay would be less than ideal, but if that is what it takes... All in all, I think I like the extra delay better than renaming the tool just to allow us to get it out there sooner. Daniel -- ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ✉ Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com> ✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (877) 575-9775 ♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
