Grouper Developers Forum

[Kathryn Huxtable <>]

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>