Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-users - Re: [grouper-users] inconsistent behavior in grouper 1.4.2 ldap provisioner

Subject: Grouper Users - Open Discussion List

List archive

Re: [grouper-users] inconsistent behavior in grouper 1.4.2 ldap provisioner

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Gabriel Jimenez <>
  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-users] inconsistent behavior in grouper 1.4.2 ldap provisioner
  • Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:19:23 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US


Here is my ldappd.xml file. Thanks!

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<groups structure="flat" root-dn="ou=Enterprise
Groups,dc=nau,dc=edu" ldap-object-class="nauEduEnterpriseGroup"
ldap-rdn-attribute="cn" grouper-attribute="name">


<source-subject-identifier source="NAULDAP"
<ldap-search base="ou=people,dc=nau,dc=edu"
scope="subtree_scope" filter="uid={0}" />

<parameter name="initial_context_factory"
value="com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory" />
<parameter name="provider_url"
value="ldap://"; />
<parameter name="security_authentication" value="simple" />
<parameter name="security_principal"
value="cn=xxxxxxx,ou=xxxxxx,dc=nau,dc=edu" />
<parameter name="security_credentials"
value="GetFromPropertiesFile" />


On 6/6/12 6:12 PM, "Tom Zeller"

>The java version should not matter.
>Replying with your ldappc.xml configuration file attached, minus
>passwords or any other private information, would be helpful.
>On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:42 PM,
>> Hello,
>> I was recently tasked with moving the grouper provisioners from one
>> machine to a virtual machine.
>> we are currently running grouper version 1.4.2
>> the only differences between the two machines are the java versions.
>> in the old machines we ran
>> Java 1.5.0_07
>> in the new one:
>> Java 1.6.0_22
>> now that the problem I am experiencing is that in the original
>> stem was not being added when the provisioner tried to update ldap even
>> in the ldappc.xml had a "flat" structure configuration. for example:
>> cn=stem:child-stem:group-name,root-dn.
>> in the installation, it seems that it is no longer ignoring this, and
>> to implement it. I have diffed all configuration files and they all
>>match up
>> exactly the same.
>> the only thing I can think off is that that particular configuration
>>was being
>> ignored in the past, or there was a bug related to the java version.
>> if any one has any insight, or has seen this before I would really
>> you help.
>> thanks,
>> Gabe

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page