Grouper Developers Forum

[Tom Barton <>]

I agree that the overriding issue from the deployer's perspective is 
lack of sufficient integration among grouper, signet, subject, and 
ldappc. It's not how they each are built, it's their combined deployment 
footprint and configuration. Fixing this is one of the hardest items 
remaining on the combined signet & grouper roadmap.

So I too don't wish to add complexity from the deployer's perspective. I 
hope that Ldappc, like Subject API, being delivered as a binary (with 
source available) will avoid the need for most deployers to use an 
additional build tool.

Tom

Michael R. Gettes wrote:
> Dave, I agree change for the sake of change is not
> desirable.  I just don't buy the consistency argument.
> Especially, from my experiences with COmanage,
> things are already not consistent, by any stretch.
>
> /mrg
>
> On Aug 7, 2008, at 1:59 AM, Dave Donnelly wrote:
> > Shibboleth may be mavenized, but Ldappc is being *used*
> > with Grouper and Signet, both of which use Ant. So I
> > would have to agree with Mike O. regarding consistency.
begin:vcard
fn:Tom Barton
n:Barton;Tom
org:University of Chicago;Networking Services & Information Technologies
email;internet:
title:Sr. Director for Integration
tel;work:+1 773 834 1700
version:2.1
end:vcard