Grouper Developers Forum

[Shilen Patel <>]

I think the main advantages of 3 are that it's simple and reliable.  As 
far as space goes, 3 would take more than 2 unless we reuse the 
flattened memberships table for PIT for active flattened memberships as 
Chris suggested.  And as far as time goes, with 2, it can take more time 
to calculate the flattened memberships that are being added or deleted, 
but with 3, it also takes time to insert the rows into the flattened 
memberships table.  But again we can reuse the table for PIT.

Thanks!

-- Shilen

On 7/12/10 6:14 PM, Tom Barton wrote:
> Thanks Shilen.
>
> Seems like a time/space trade off between options 2 and 3, and we chose
> to burn space rather than time for 1.6. Is that about right? Is 3 also
> simpler than 2?
>
> I don't think I'd made the firm connection before between point in time
> audit and other systems that need a flattened view of memberships,
> permissions, etc in grouper. I'm curious: if we had another way of
> determining PIT audit info, could we turn things around and do flattened
>    notifications using that infrastructure?
>
> Tom
>
> Shilen Patel wrote:
>    
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I just added some documentation on the flattened membership table design.
> >
> > https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/GrouperWG/Flat+Memberships+Design
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- Shilen
> >
> >
> > On 7/7/10 3:01 PM, Emily Eisbruch wrote:
> >      
> > > [AI] (Shilen) will write up design objectives of the flattened
> > > memberships table.
> > >
> > >        
> >      
>