Any C coders want to help me with something?

[Mike McGrath]

On Sat, 2 May 2009, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 08:57:22AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 May 2009, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 02:54:08AM -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> > > > On 2009-05-01 09:11:11 AM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > > Maybe if someone gives some detail on why the LDAP setup looked like
> > > > > too hacky we could find a better solution and use LDAP?
> > >
> > > > We were basically trying to use LDAP like a relational DB instead of a
> > > > directory, so we were trying to force our entire sponsorship system to
> > > > be totally contained in LDAP.  Looking back at this, the best approach
> > > > with LDAP would probably have been a DB for sponsorship data, and LDAP
> > > > for holding approved user/group data.  As I mentioned, I'd be interested
> > > > in exploring this approach a bit more in the future.
> > >
> > > With details I mean something more like what exact bits where not
> > > mapping naturally into some LDAP structure, existent or custom schema
> > > made.
> > >
> >
> > Both ldap groups basically suggested to us to have 3 groups for each
> > 'group'.  SO if you have a sysadmin group we'd have 'sysadmin'
> > 'sysadmin-sponsors' and 'sysadmin-admins'.  Then we'd move people from
> > one group to another.
>
> Where is the information "*-vanilla" vs "*-sponsors" vs "*-admins"
> needed? If nothing else outside of FAS needs it, then I'd simply add a
> custom attribute. If you would need to export this information to say
> filesystem ACLs to allow different access to sysadmin-sponsors and
> sysadmin-admins, then you would have to split into these subgroups
> anyway somewhere in the FAS -> filesystem ACLs process.
>
> > Then there was the concept of marking who sponsored who in that group.  So
> > if Axel joined the sysadmin group and I sponsored him in that group, that
> > I be able to track that information.
>
> That really sounds like a simple custom attribute, possibly not even
> needed anywhere else outside of FAS scope.
>
> > Those two requirements together make ldap a poor solution in our use
> > case.
>
> Why? Custom schemes are quite often found in LDAP world, and it is
> really just two attributes you are adding to typical PosixAccounts.
>

I'm not sure "why" you'd have to ask the fedora-ds and openldap devs.  We
dropped ldap largly on their recommendation, the comment that did it for
me was "what you're trying to do with ldap is not a very ldap way of doing
things."  Thus why I described what we were trying to do as "hacky"

	-Mike