Grouper Developers Forum

["Michael R. Gettes" <>]

Makes sense to me!!!

/mrg

On May 28, 2008, at 10:21, Tom Barton wrote:

> 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
> <tbarton.vcf>