Grouper Developers Forum

[Chris Hyzer <>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Barton 
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:10 PM
> To: Chris Hyzer
> Cc: Grouper Dev
> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 4-Feb-09
> 
> Yes, that helps me. And although you might've said so before, I didn't
> realize until now that PIT records would be linked somehow with the
> user
> audit data, that the two in tandem are likely to be what's used to
> answer many actual questions of an audit/historical nature.
> 

Yes, that was Gary's good idea.

However, although I am not close to starting the PIT stuff, it is a bit of a 
thorn in my side as I think about how it will work.  I had my mind set on 
triggers, but deletes are a bit tricky...  When you delete a row, the 
contextId is not there, so how can the row and the contextId be inserted into 
the PIT table?  Three options:

1. Update the row with the new contextId, then delete it, and the trigger now 
knows the contextId
2. Delete it, have the trigger insert into the PIT without the contextId, 
then use java to update the PIT with the known contextId (not exactly sure 
how to get the primary key of the PIT row)
3. Just use Java and no triggers

Its looking like the cleanest solution is now the third one... sorry to 
change course, but maybe we should start there, and if performance or other 
concerns warrant, we can try another one...  I kind of think since we are 
keeping the context id for deletes, #1 and #2 are a little kludgy...  I guess 
we could do a hybrid approach (updates with triggers and deletes with java), 
but that doesn't seem elegant either...  hmmm

I wonder if the notification queue table needs contextId.  I have a feeling 
it does, so the same situation will occur.  The advantage to doing 
notifications from Java is we can filter what goes into the notification 
queue (and the cardinality), so the queue will be more accurate.  With 
triggers we will get a lot of noise in the queue (and singletons where need 
to go back and insert multiples), so the processing of the queue will require 
more work.

Regards,
Chris