Grouper Developers Forum

["blair christensen." <>]

On 1/30/07, dan 
<>
 wrote:
> 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
> you.

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
> on:
> 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
> grouper
> 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!