Grouper Developers Forum

["Michael R. Gettes" <>]

It should be quite feasible to distribute AMQ within the Grouper install and 
have it come up just as grouper does.
Lots of products come with embedded components.  A small org could run 
grouper and not even care there is AMQ.

/mrg

On Aug 14, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Scott Koranda 
<>
 wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Michael R. Gettes 
> <>
>  wrote:
>> We share the same vision Michael.  Our changelog consumer makes use of the
>> AMQ library calls.  It shouldn’t be hard to substitute XYZ broker API to
>> make it compatible with Rabbit and so on.
> 
> +1
> 
> I understand the value proposition for making AMQ the preferred
> message broker, and a tight
> integration with Grouper makes sense to me, but I would like to see
> the changelog consumer
> flexible enough so that one could "easily" use a different message system.
> 
> I would also appreciate an effort to standardize on the message format(s).
> 
> I disagree with Michael about a change log consumer that provisions
> directly to LDAP. For smaller
> campuses and virtual organizations a change log consumer that directly
> provisions to LDAP (including
> a bulk synchronization mode or cycle) is preferred even if a messaging
> system like AMQ ends up being
> well integrated with Grouper. Having the additional message broker
> piece adds extra complexity
> that smaller organizations simply do not want to deal with. The
> Grouper team always has to make
> tradeoffs and decisions about where to invest limited effort and IMHO
> it is worth the effort to have
> a simple LDAP provisioner not bound to a messaging system that is
> known to support the major
> LDAP implementations (OpenLDAP, 389, Sun/Oracle, MS AD).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott K