Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Graham Seaman <>
  • To: Grouper Dev <>
  • Cc: Signet <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Re: [signet-dev] Proposal for ldappc provision scoping behavior
  • Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:14:26 +0100

Tom Barton wrote:

More to the point, I picked up on your statement that you are provisioning UUIDs in the isMemberOf attribute and not group names. Is that right? And is that actually required by what you intend to accomplish, or can you proceed by provisioning group names in isMemberOf?

I've been back over my mails and can't see where I said that, though I guess I must have. In fact I am already using group names in isMember Of.

The net of this is, if you provision group names to isMemberOf, it is possible to enhance ldappc so that it can know which isMemberOf values are its to manage by reference to the stems in the provisioned group names.

Not that we've decided that's what will be done, but I think we're wondering whether that's a worthwhile thing to do.
Yes. It's possible I may knock up a quick and dirty php subset of a grouper/signet-like utility and test this out myself, it's the approach that seems most logical to me (the idea of yet another db just to handle this kind of information does not appeal). And I have time pressures that make the wait for a full, non-hacky solution impractical.


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

*Sigh*. I agree that we need to provide more help, in some form, to get deployers up and running far more easily.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page