> I've done some of the api changes needed, but now I would
like to make it a
> easier to add command line tools that can utilise lib389.
This is right inline with what we would like to do as well.
Glad to hear it.
> I would like to add a "tools" directory to lib389 with a number of the cli
> and helpers that I have written . Is this the best location for these
If there are really simple, maybe they could just be added to the
tools.py/utils.py files? More on this below...
Yes and no. See below, as I think I explain a bit better what I'm working
> Some of them could arguably go into the main line 389ds
codebase, but I want
> use lib389 to back them.
This really depends on the tool, but see below...
> Second, with these tools I don't want them to be complex.
+1 For lib389 inclusion they should be very simple, so that other tools
can utilize them.
Glad that we agree on this.
> Either, I can add in functionality to the list() function to
> about each instance, possibly enough to just take the result from list() and
> it in as allocate(args) and have a working connection. Alternately I write a
> allocate_from_instance() (or some other name ...?) function that is able to
> the discovery of the needed data, and then call allocate.
> Which would be the preferred method.
Both. Expand the instance dictionary(your proposal could be useful for
many other tasks/tools), and create the new allocate_from_instance
Well, there is no point doing both.
I was either going to expand the instance dict to include all the SER_*
attributes, so that you could literally pass it straight to allocate().
Or, you have just the instance name added to the instance dict, then you have
allocate_from_instance (Which also, I don't like that name even though I came up
with it. It's confusing :S ) which will then discover all the SER_* values, then
pass them all to allocate() anyway.
This is why I think we should choose on way or the other. My preference is
actually the former, as we avoid a confusing function name, and it makes the
value of the list() function greater. You could do:
insts = ds.list(all=True)
someinst = insts
Or even allocate a new DirSrv, etc.
> Comments and advice is appreciated.
>  The tools I want to add are:
> * List all known system instances
> * schema query tools (list of object classes, attributes, query which
> objectclasses can take which attribute)
This should really be added to schema.py, or at least the core
functionality added to schema.py, then build your tool off of that?
* aci testing and manipulation tools. For example, "does aci X
do what I
> * aci inversion tool. convert != aci's into == aci's to help conversion to
Maybe these aci tools could be partially integrated into a new acl.py
file? Kind of like what I suggested with the schema tools.
> * Probably many more that I haven't thought of yet to help make
> of a 389ds instance simpler.
Ultimately, I would like to see some of your new functionally go into
the existing core module, and then write your tools based off of those.
This way it can be leveraged outside of your "specific task" tools - for
use in other new/future tools. Of course I am specualting a bit,
because I have not seen what you are working on yet.
You have already seen my work, and acked most of the functionality into the core
modules. Additionally the aci.py module is waiting in your inbox for informal
<- Will be used in conjunction with
aci.py to evaluate and test aci functionality is working as expected, both in
the aci evaluation engine in 389ds, but also from a semantic point of view of
<- Is all the functionality needed to
make the schema query tool I was discussing before.
My goal was to always add functionality into the library, then make the most
minimal command line tool possible to just stich it all together. This way both
unit tests and possible cli tools can benefit from the work. So I think we
already have the same approach, I just maybe didn't communicate that very well.
Perhaps others on this list might have some opinions & thoughts as well?
In the meantime I would like to see what you are working on, and we can
discuss this together and work towards an ideal approach.
Sounds like a plan!
Thanks again for your interest and contribution to the lib389 project!
You're welcome. Thanks for your time reviewing my work and ideas.
William Brown <william(a)blackhats.net.au>