COmanage Developers List

[Benn Oshrin <>]

By way of background, there are two related but distinct RFEs for context...

CO-721 Groups of Groups: A group can contain another group and therefore 
its members.

CO-1223 Group Hierarchy: A group has a parent and maybe children, 
similar to COUs. The hierarchical position is for organization only, and 
does not affect group membership is any way.

I've just about finished the code for CO-721 (for v3.3.0). It works by 
manifesting CoGroupMember records in the target group based on the 
source group. ie: The source group is not technically a member of the 
target group, but rather a relation is defined such that when an 
appropriate change happens, the appropriate CoGroupMemberships are 
updated. CO-1223 is basically out of scope for the moment (perhaps 
targeted for v5.0.0). The target group may have direct and indirect members.

The issue I'd like to sort out now is terminology. Ideally, I'd like to 
align with existing terminology (such as Grouper's) but I'm not sure if 
that's actually possible. Currently, I'm using "parent group", in which 
a "nested group" is used to add the "indirect" memberships. However, I'd 
like to reserve "parent group" for CO-1223.

AIUI, Grouper has "composite groups" which are not the same thing as 
what I'm calling "nested groups". Composite groups take two source 
groups and create a third, so A & B = C, A | B  = C, etc. Registry is 
specifically not implementing group math (well, for now I guess), so I'm 
not sure it makes sense to borrow "composite" and "factor" from Grouper, 
since that probably just makes things more confusing for everyone.

I suppose I could use "source" and "target" instead of "nested" and 
"parent", but I'm not sure if that's clearer.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Benn-