Subject: Grouper Users - Open Discussion List
- From: dan <>
- To: "blair christensen." <>
- Subject: Re: [grouper-users] v1.1 comments
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:59:30 +1100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TRvzMqhgfXIVWSN0oL6jqXMJLbFUIBj9Fh1mfyfMFOhQO2rLNDVNLPOsDhxN7ri/JhoB4oP7pjPNl0uAFDAYlsrD/tZTnp96XGIE1L46fyWBmvPIUfyKFknlG2GOxwNgCAQ+xj4i5eDyXDxUa2a5LgqKEAYxJUSCAV6YU4jjc0Q=
Agreed. In Grouper 1.1, the titles of Subject search results are the
"description" values - so I always end up making them the same as the
"name" ones anyway.
On 1/25/07, blair christensen.
On 1/23/07, Tom Barton
> Jim Fox wrote:
> > The two values "subject id" and "subject name" are the
> > source of some confusion.
> Agree. Although we'll probably need to revisit the proposed Subject v1.0
> spec, at least briefly, before acting on it, we'll probably remove the
> distinguished attributes of "name" and "description", leaving just "id",
> plus whatever attributes are returned by the ldap query configured in
I'm definitely in favor of this change. The
id/identifier/name/description mishmash has been a source of
- v1.1 comments, Jim Fox, 01/23/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.