[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 1106 IPA REST smart proxy

[Dmitri Pal]

On 02/13/2014 06:07 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 09:35 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>> Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>> On 01/23/2014 02:17 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> ...
>>>> The URL endpoint /ipa/rest suggests that if we implement a complete 
>>>> REST
>>>> API for IPA it would live here. Is the API supposed to be
>>>> future-compatible? (The API itself seems to be a good subset of a
>>>> complete REST API, but can we easily add an frontend with
>>>> authentication, i18n, etc. here later, and keep the limitations for
>>>> unauthenticated access?)
>>>> Perhaps /ipa/smartproxy would be a better choice?
>>>
>>> It was future-proofing. I'm fine with changing the URI, it is 
>>> probably a good
>>> thing to save that name.
>>
>> +1 for moving to /ipa/smartproxy/rest, we will want a complete REST 
>> interface
>> in ipa/rest/ in the future. I rather opened a ticket to track that:
>>
>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4168
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> I think I've addressed most of Petr's suggestions with the exception 
> of the global ipa handle and I stuck with *args, **options as this is 
> pretty much standard in IPA calls.
>
> The gssproxy.conf.snippet just makes it easier to copy/paste. I can 
> drop it if you want, I suppose it is duplication.
>
> Note that I ran this past the Foreman design again and as a result 
> added another interface, /realm. It was my understanding that this 
> Foreman design wasn't set into stone but a patch is working its way 
> through their system that followed the spec so I went ahead and added 
> it. It isn't a big deal, the Host() class handles it out of the box.
>
> I also updated the design page a bit to reflect some of the changes made.
>
> Right now there are no plans to backport python-kerberos to F20.
>
> rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Recently we had a ticket in SSSD
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2217
Should we have a similar one for IPA client and especially for the proxy?
Proxy will be a long term running process so dealing with the stale 
tickets becomes important for it if replica is re-installed. Is it 
something that is solved in API level or on the proxy level?
Should we have a separate ticket for that?


-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.


-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20140213/43efcf76/attachment.htm>