Re: [autofs4 patch] Clean up the ldap code

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:33 -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > ==> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:03:40 -0500, Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com> said:
> >
> > Peter> Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Peter> > Hi, Ian, list,
> > Peter> >
> > Peter> > Here's a patch that significantly cleans up the lookup_ldap module.
> > Peter> > In the beginning of time (for this module), there was only one
> > Peter> > supported LDAP schema.  And for a time, it was good.  After a while,
> > Peter> > however, standards emerged -- standards which conflicted with our
> > Peter> > original LDAP schema vision.  With each new standard, our LDAP module
> > Peter> > gained ugly if clauses and added return values.  The parsing of such
> > Peter> > things made the module less and less pleasing to the eye.  And, users
> > Peter> > began to complain of many queries to their poor little LDAP servers.
> > Peter> >
> > Peter> > In a heroic effort to bring peace back to the world of autofs and
> > Peter> > LDAP, I present this patch.  Among its merits, I submit the following:
> > Peter> >
> > Peter> > o It will perform less binds to the LDAP server
> > Peter> > o It will remember which LDAP schema worked, and continue to query
> > Peter> >   only that schema (instead of trying all three every time)
> > Peter> >
> >
> > Peter> It is good to remember the working schema, but what happens if that
> > Peter> schema stops working?  It seems like it would be good to forget and
> > Peter> then try all three again until another working schema is discovered.
> >
> > I'm not sure that a sane administrator would switch schemas in
> > production; that seems like a fairly unlikely situation.  Also, how
> > would you differentiate between a failed lookup for a key that doesn't
> > exist and a failed lookup due to a schema change?  I think that we
> > have to enforce at least some sane constraints, here.
> >
> >   
> 
> I guess that I was naively hoping that there was some way to
> differentiate between these two failed lookups.
> 
> If not, then I agree completely.  I think that assuming a sane
> administrator may be a bit of a dangerous assumption, but what
> the heck, gotta start someplace, I guess.  :-)

A sane administrator, now there's a thought!

Ian