NetAuth is primarily managed by the command line. Eventually there might be a web client that can do certain tasks, but that will be still a ways off. The question then becomes how to structure the management interface.
If we look back at other systems, there’s a few options. There’s the command shell of something like kadmin, there’s the multiple commands that make up the ldap suite, and there’s a few other systems that use one binary with multiple shell commands under it.
Command shells are a really cool idea, they give you this ability to open a console which has special builtins for things that the service can do and things you want to manipulate. These shells though are not particularly convenient in my experience. Just about the only time I think I’ve used this functionality was setting someone’s shell to kadmin so that they could do basic management tasks without needing to understand the system they were connecting to. Command shells are also annoyingly complicated to get right since they are after all shells.
Ok, so if we don’t use a command shell then one can simply call a binary and it will do something, and the being a shell business will be left to an actuall shell such as bash or zsh. This is all good and well, but now the question is one binary or many?
In the many binaries approach you wind up with something like the ldap toolset which comprises binaries to add, remove, modify, delete and a few other specialized actions. In practice I think I’ve only ever used ldapmodify but that’s as a result of having an emacs major mode that would flush the buffer into ldapmodify. This approach has the advantage of being easily understood and battle tested. The shadow tools work this way, the NIS tools work this way, and even some of Microsoft’s own tooling for AD works this way.
In practice this means that you tend to have a bunch of commands that all start with the same thing. These wind up being things like ldapadd, ldapmodify, ldapdelete and so on. This works really well to show what namespace these tools belong to, they all do things with ldap. Similarly the NIS tools all start with ‘yp’ to show they belong to the same functional set. What if instead of ‘ldapmodify’ though we had ‘ldap modify’. Its a subtle difference, but an important one. In the second case, you have a single base command, in this case ‘ldap’ which then provides subcommands that perform specific actions. This allows you to share a large amount of code in the single binary that might be difficult to pull off otherwise in the case of many binaries.
This is the option that NetAuth uses. NetAuth has a single control binary called netauthctl which exposes subcommands for doing different things. In the help output, this shows up as a bunch of groups of commands around logical tasks. The netauthctl binary takes its own top level options, but then each subcommand can also take options that are relavant to it. Adding new commands is also easy, its just a matter of registering a struct with methods that satisfy an interface, which amounts to about 2 lines of code to register, and around 50 lines of code for each command.
NetAuth’s commands live in the internal/ctl package.>> Home