Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 4-Feb-09

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 4-Feb-09


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Zeller <>
  • To: Chris Hyzer <>
  • Cc: Grouper Dev <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 4-Feb-09
  • Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:49:33 -0600
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=LThvD6CtgLlvBJOi4tL48brV6NWBd8GDf1tNyyJKsCCdG7L18ZjAVkHjkosttpe21J m7of8548Y/EErRHtBpHwk2LEABHC/vX+aFavTpo7/+EO3oI+pqubCL79NXFsuCuiwejQ F8FSJbo+9im/Fpmh/JakKf7oaKNDQrfFTl+lI=

Is it desireable and/or possible to customize auditing ?

For example, let's say it is important for an organization to audit a custom attribute of a group (e.g. email address) or an unknown-to-grouper attribute of the subject (e.g. department) performing a modification. And, for this hypothetical situation, the organization would like to use database trigger driven auditing rather than hooks because triggers are more reliable. So, whenever a group or membership is changed, they want to write the email address of the group or the department of the subject who made the modification to the audit record as a name=value attribute for later historical use.

Would customized auditing dictate a particular audit record data structure ?

TomZ







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page