Grouper Developers Forum

[Jeff Van Eeuwen <>]

Tom,

Changing the xml to be more concise isn't a bad thing. However in this 
instance, you do loose organization and structure in the XML file that makes 
it easier in the future to add functionality to a specific query type.  It 
may be that these types of queries aren't going to change so this isn't an 
issue, and it is perfectly acceptable to get rid of the additional structure. 
   

Jeff

>I agree that your proposal is more concise syntax. In fact, maybe even 
>leave the <query-list> element out of it.
>
>Does anyone have any reasons why this syntax should not be trimmed up in 
>the next release of ldappc?
>
>Tom
>
>Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
>> Oh my, that formatted badly. Try this. -K
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/17/07 10:58 AM, "Kathryn Huxtable" 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>     BTW, I don't really like the selection XML syntax. Instead of having
>>     a separate section with a list with options for each type of
>>     selection, why not mix them, e.g. Instead of
>> 
>>         <group-queries>
>>           <subordinate-stem-queries>
>>             <stem-list>
>>               <stem>testStem</stem>
>>               <stem>qsuob</stem>
>>             </stem-list>
>>           </subordinate-stem-queries>
>>           <attribute-matching-queries>
>>             <attribute-list>
>>               <attribute name="attribute" value="value" />
>>             </attribute-list>
>>           </attribute-matching-queries>
>>         </group-queries>
>>     Why not have:
>> 
>>         <group-queries>
>>           <query-list>
>>               <subordinate-stem stem=”testStem” />
>>               <attribute-match name="attribute" value="value" />
>>           </query-list>
>>         </group-queries>
>>     I think this would be more concise and also more readable. I would
>>     also suggest doing away with the <query-list> element and making the
>>     <group-queries> element take one or more of the different query type
>>     elements.
>> 
>>     BTW, using Blair’s GroupTypeFilter I have produced a group type
>>     query selector for ldappc. This is done.
>> 
>>     -K
>> 
>>     On 2/12/07 8:12 AM, "blair christensen." 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>     >  On 2/10/07, Tom Barton 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>>     > > Good suggestion. Ldappc uses GrouperQuery to select groups &
>>     > > memberships, and reviewing that just now, I see that there's no 
>group
>>     > > type filter. If we create a group type filter, would you be game to
>>     > > extend Ldappc's current use of GrouperQuery to include this new
>>     filter?
>>     >
>>     >  I added a group type query filter to HEAD in early January so there
>>     >  will be API support for this in the next Grouper release.
>> 
>>