Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] Notes and suggestions from integrating signet, grouper and ldappc

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] Notes and suggestions from integrating signet, grouper and ldappc

Chronological Thread 
  • From: "blair christensen." <>
  • To: dan <>
  • Cc: "" <>, "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Notes and suggestions from integrating signet, grouper and ldappc
  • Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:42:20 -0600
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=QfuVvhYVC6v+EmzOwjIXkNfTl3C6tRwPPuJrvQ+325Xj+flx4fpsY73/8WknsO1FMijd1JvVU/3a0CyU9UkxzkecZQ2EPZEMDfqufJPQn17VCor8uhhU7B9SoD3TZDTYVsbopUGQiD88G1196nJxEoQ2PQClq20perv3VLN7Yj4=

On 1/30/07, dan
I just thought I'd share a few notes from my experience integrating
grouper-1.1, signet-1.0.3 and ldappc-1.0. Hopefully these will be useful to

I think they were extremely useful.

- The code is fine, I haven't stumbled across any showstopping bugs, but I
didn't expect to considering this code is already deplyed in a number of
production contexts.

Good to hear!

[A lot of really good comments snipped]

I had started to reply to a number of them but once I realized most of
my responses could be summarized as "Yes, we should improve that" I
thought this might be more appropriate.

In summary, a lot of this trickiness could be alleviated just by deciding
1. standard build procedure and commands, e.g. build, test, dist, install,
where install implies db-init
2. explicit dependencies and testing of supported version pairs under a
common i2mi-common version, with same lib versions for both signet and
3. standard way of deploying and running webapps, e.g. in-place or war
4. centralised, single subjects.xml

For most of these, Grouper and Signet never intentionally tried to
take a different approach. However, as each project was being
developed somewhat independently, a large number of inconsistencies
have arisen. I know we had intended to improve the integration
between them once they both reached 1.0 but we probably haven't moved
as quickly as we could have.

I'll start a conversation with the rest of the Grouper and Signet
people about your comments. It is probably too late to get any
potential changes into the next Signet release (which I believe is due
soon) but the next Grouper release is another matter. In addition, it
should help clarify where we need better integration documentation.

Thanks for your comments!

  • Re: [grouper-dev] Notes and suggestions from integrating signet, grouper and ldappc, blair christensen., 02/08/2007

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page