Grouper Developers Forum

[Kathryn Huxtable <>]

Well, you could still make the queries more complex, e.g.

<group-queries>
  <subordinate-stem stem="qsuob:foo">
    more structure
  </subordinate-stem>
  ...
</group-queries>

So I don't think we're necessarily losing anything.

-K

On 2/18/07 7:25 PM, "Jeff Van Eeuwen" 
<>
 wrote:

> 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=²testStem² />
>>>               <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 Blair¹s 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.
>>> 
>>>