Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 7-July-2010

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 7-July-2010

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Shilen Patel <>
  • To: Tom Barton <>
  • Cc: Grouper Dev <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Action Items: Grouper Call 7-July-2010
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:22:30 -0400

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.


-- 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?


Shilen Patel wrote:
Hi Tom,

I just added some documentation on the flattened membership table design.


-- Shilen

On 7/7/10 3:01 PM, Emily Eisbruch wrote:
[AI] (Shilen) will write up design objectives of the flattened
memberships table.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page