Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - FW: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 3-Sep-08

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

FW: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 3-Sep-08

Chronological Thread 
  • From: caleb racey <>
  • To: Grouper Dev <>
  • Subject: FW: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 3-Sep-08
  • Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:25:29 +0100
  • Accept-language: en-GB
  • Acceptlanguage: en-GB

Apologies forgot to include grouper dev in my original reply to chris on
grouper queuing

-----Original Message-----
From: caleb racey
Sent: 08 September 2008 09:33
To: 'Chris Hyzer'
Subject: RE: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 3-Sep-08

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Hyzer
>Sent: 04 September 2008 18:43
>To: Tom Barton; caleb racey
>Cc: Grouper Dev
>Subject: RE: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 3-Sep-08
>Not to derail the request for an example, but I would like to discuss
>the architecture at some point as well...
>Are we assuming that we still need a queue in the Grouper DB, then a
>daemon to retrieve items from that and send to messaging?

This sounds sensible, while ActiveMQ seems like a good queuing choice to me
but in many institutes the queuing system will already be determined (e.g.
biztalk, oracle, websphere mq). Having an architecture that enable institutes
to integrate grouper into existing systems would be beneficial. Having a
queue in grouper DB and a daemon to process those messages sounds like a
good way of achieving this. That way grouper gets to process messages
relating to grouper and then hand the communication and routing of those
messages off to third party apps which were built to handle message delivery,
routing and processing.

We would want
>messaging reliable even if the ActiveMQ is down for a bit, right?


>we would want it to be transactional with the Grouper transaction (e.g.
>if the Grouper tx is committed, we definitely want a message, and if
>not, we definitely don't.


Also we need to make sure the order of
>messages is consistent with the order of operations against the Grouper
>DB which can happen based on disparate systems (UI, GSH, WS, etc)

I was struggling to think of instances where we care about operation order, i
suppose creating a stem then creating a group under it is order sensitive.
Generally the bulk of our updates are membership adds and deletes which
aren't order sensitive for us.

>ActiveMQ does look like a nice product though...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Barton
>> [mailto:]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:29 PM
>> To: caleb racey
>> Cc: Grouper Dev
>> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 3-Sep-08
>> Caleb,
>> It would be great to get feedback from an effort to use hooks by those
>> outside of the development team. It would also be great to have an
>> actual example of sourcing group management events into a message-
>> system. Let us know if you need any help.
>> Tom
>> caleb racey wrote:
>> >> [AI] {Kathryn} will do background research on a messaging system to
>> >> be used as a test/example case for hooks.
>> >
>> > I have just been testing activeMQ JMS message queuing and have also
>> been testing it with the STOMP protocol connector to provide access to
>> JMS queues to other languages (php perl python ruby etc) with php
>> message consumption and posting tested.
>> >
>> > More than happy to help with this effort and I can recommend
>> as a test platform, I had it setup and running in about 30 minutes and
>> it has nice examples to learn from.
>> >
>> >
>> >

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page