Grouper Developers Forum

[Graham Seaman <>]

Michael R. Gettes wrote:
> Sorry if the LSE case was discussed here before and I
> wasn't paying attention.  But from this I glean LSE
> is using a flat namespace.  I think LSE needs to
> consider using some simple hierarchy.  Doing things
> completely flat, to me, is a sign of poor planning.
> Sorry, but that's how I feel about it.  If this is
> a "common" problem, then maybe we need to discuss
> a strategy - but if it is LSE and LSE alone at this
> point - I think LSE needs to consider changing.
This isn't the LSE institutional setup, but a provisional test directory 
I'm working on to find if it's practical to do what we need with 
signet/grouper. 'Flat' was my own choice, partly dictated by lack of 
experience with ldap and a desire to keep things as simple as possible; 
I simply modelled my externally derived groups on the groups provisioned 
by grouper using the 'flat' option. I've now understood that if I want 
to do this with grouper I need to move to 'bushy'. Since this is 
test/development work, I can do that without any institutional impact at 
all.

It might be helpful  if some words warning people about the potential 
downside of using a 'flat' group structure were added to the wiki.

Graham


> and thank you for taking the time to clarify.
>
> /mrg