Grouper Developers Forum

[Tom Barton <>]

Tom Zeller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:23 AM, GW Brown < 
> <mailto:>> wrote:
>
>     I think we need to be very clear on what we are trying to achieve
>     with auditing since it impacts greatly on our approach.
>
>     Tom B. has suggested that we use reliable (guaranteed) auditing as a
>     way of recording changes such that these changes can be used to
>     drive potentially less reliable notifications. Effectively, if a
>     notification fails it might be reconstructed / queried for by a
>     'listener' system. So, in Java, we will have a representation of a
>     change which can be 'serialised' to the audit database. It should
>     then be possible to re-constitute the Java representation of the
>     change from the data in the audit database.
>
>
> I'm not clear on reliable vs less- or un-reliable auditing. I understand 
> the notion of serializing a (java) change to an audit database, but I 
> don't understand where 'guaranteed' fits in. Clues ?

I distinguish between audit and notification as functions. Audit must be 
reliable, else you don't really have audit. Notification might be more 
or less reliable, depending on how you build it. At one point we were 
contemplating relying on notification for audit. I thought that was the 
wrong way around. They might be separate capabilities, or you might 
build notification on top of audit.

So, "guaranteed" in the sense that a hibernate commit is guaranteed, or 
any other determinant action in the API is guaranteed.

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