Re: [Pki-devel] CLI for editing profiles

On 7/23/2014 2:09 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote: Some comments/questions: 1. About the the new ou=certProfiles entry, We probably should move it into the ou=ca subtree because that subtree already contains other CA-specific LDAP entries such as ou=certificateRepository. 2. Is certProfilesLastModified really necessary? Each LDAP entry already has a modifyTimestamp attributes. To be accurate, the certProfilesLastModified has to be updated whenever the profiles are imported or updated. There seems to be no code for that yet, and there's no guarantee it won't get out of sync (e.g. server crash, direct LDAP modification). 3. If certProfilesLastModified is really necessary, instead of adding a separate cn=certProfilesInfo entry just to hold this attribute, we probably can move it into ou=certProfiles either by extending the organizationalUnit object class or adding an auxiliary object class. We probably should make it an optional attribute (i.e. no attribute means never updated). 4. I'm not sure if we really need the certProfileIsDefault attribute. There's no guarantee that the value will be accurate because someone could modify the certProfileConfig directly and forget to update certProfileIsDefault. Also, if we need to do any profile upgrade, it should be based on the actual configuration parameters in certProfileConfig, not based on the certProfileIsDefault. 5. In LDAPConfigStore let's not use the 'm' prefix for the field names. It's a legacy convention and we should not use it for newer code. 6. The mInDatabase in LDAPConfigStore doesn't seem to be used anywhere. 7. In LDAPConfigStore the certProfileConfig attribute is read as binary using getByteValues(). Is there a specific reason? Can we use getStringValues() since the content is a string (i.e. property file)? 8. The ProfileService constructs the profile DN. I think this level of details should be hidden in the ProfileSubsystem layer. The ProfileService shouldn't need to know where/how the profiles are stored. 9. The ProfileAdminServlet calls ProfileSubsystem.createProfile() but it supplies a config path instead of a DN. As in #8, I think the caller should only specify the profile ID, it's up to the ProfileSubsystem to determine the actual location (i.e. profile DN). 10. The mProfileDNs in ProfileSubsystem shouldn't be necessary because we can generate the DN from the profileId since it's a flat tree. 11. The profile subsystem index is hard-coded in the following line: cs.remove("subsystem.1.enabled"); Although this code is modifying the standard CS.cfg, it would be better to do a search the index, then make the modification with the index. int index = ... find subsystem index where id=profile ... cs.remove("subsystem." + index + ".enabled"); This will avoid problems if we ever add a default subsystem in the future. 12. The profile-show-raw is essentially the same as profile-show, except the output format is different. I'd suggest merging them into profile-show and use an option like --raw to show the raw profile. About the out-of-band class ID, I think we should just map it into a 'virtual' property in the raw profile (e.g. class_id=...). The property will only exist if the client pulls the raw profile. As already in done the patch, in the database it will be stored in classId attribute instead of certProfileConfig. In the long term all properties will be converted into separate attributes like this, and the 'raw' format should only exist as a legacy interface. 13. The ProfileResource.retrieveProfileRaw() returns a byte[]. Although it works just fine for this purpose, I think returning a Properties would make it more developer-friendly. That way the output is readily usable, and it takes care of any CR/LF issue across different platforms. Maybe call it getProfileProperties()? 14. The CAInstallerService.importProfiles() and importProfile() don't need to be static. As virtual methods it will have access to other member attributes/methods already defined in the class and its super classes (e.g. config store). A long term goal is to eliminate the use of static methods in CMS (it's not very modular). 15. Minor. I see two styles of writing the try-catch block in the patch: try { ... } catch (...) { ... } and try { ... } catch (...) { ... } I think the first one is more common. 16. Minor. Instead of adding the enabled parameter to the existing SubsystemInfo constructor (and having to modify all invocations), it's also possible to create a new constructor with the enabled parameter and call it from the old constructor with enabled set to true. -- Endi S. Dewata