Grouper Developers Forum

[Tom Barton <>]

I was thinking much the same, but the other way around. If we add to a 
history table as each transaction completes, all that remains for 
notification is to fire up the notifier and tell it there's something 
new. Sites vested in database triggers could do it themselves that way. 
The grouper product could instead include a technique along the lines of 
what ChrisH proposed to fire up a registered notifier (replacing the 
function of "asynchronous post-hook"). We might supply a notifier 
implementation that can (1) update an LDAP directory and/or (2) send a 
message to a web service. Something like that.

If audit were to rely on notification, then to have a reliable audit 
history I think we'd need to have reliable notification in the grouper 
API. But going the other way around I think we can avoid that need.

Tom

Michael R. Gettes wrote:
> You know - I was pondering all this and James' note triggered it
> for me - when it comes to Audit - why couldn't a notification system
> handle the audit needs?  Kill 2 birds with one stone.
>
> /mrg
>
> On May 28, 2008, at 9:45, Cramton, James wrote:
>
> > 2. A secondary need is for enhanced audit logging, particularly for
> > certain high value events, TBD.
> >
> > Them's our 2 cents.
> >
> >
> > James Cramton
> > Lead Programmer/Analyst
> > Brown University
> >
> > 401 345 9795
begin:vcard
fn:Tom Barton
n:Barton;Tom
org:University of Chicago;Networking Services & Information Technology
adr;dom:1155 E. 60th St.;;Rm 309, 1155 Bldg;Chicago;IL;60637
email;internet:
title:Sr. Director - Integration
tel;work:+1 773 834 1700
version:2.1
end:vcard