Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [signet-dev] Re: Ldappc has been mavenized, need advice

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [signet-dev] Re: Ldappc has been mavenized, need advice


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Kathryn Huxtable <>
  • To: Tom Barton <>
  • Cc: Grouper Dev <>,
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] RE: [signet-dev] Re: Ldappc has been mavenized, need advice
  • Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:07:08 -0500

Yep. I agree 100%.

BTW, I have renamed the CVS projects. The old 1.1.1 version is now ldappc-old and the new 1.2.0 version is ldappc. I have added information to this effect in the wiki.

-K

On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Tom Barton wrote:

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.
<tbarton.vcf>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page