Re: [Pki-devel] [PATCH] 198-203 patches to address multiple issues in KeyResource server and client code.

On 2/24/2014 4:47 PM, John Magne wrote: > ACK 201, comments below: > > ACK for patch #201. Some comments: > > 1. Are we going to change the attribute name in the LDAP database? If so > do we need to upgrade the existing database? > > I can see a case for leaving this the same. The user won't have big use > to look at the ldap. Yeah, we don't have to upgrade the database now. But in the long term it would be nice to have an attribute name that matches the client API. > On the second thought, what do you think about using "key label" instead > of "client key ID"? So Key ID would remain the unique identifier for the > key, and the Key Label would be an identifier but it's not unique. No > need to redo the whole patch, just search & replace the patch. I can > help with this. > I think alee has done enough. The new name sounds fine to me. :) I don't think > having ID in the name automatically implies that the uniqueness on the key itself. > It's more for the client to identify a set of keys with one being the active one. Either name is fine. I just thought "label" is simpler. If we decided to use label I can help make the changes, no extra work for alee :)