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: Tom Zeller <>
  • To: Gabriel Jimenez <>
  • Cc: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-users] inconsistent behavior in grouper 1.4.2 ldap provisioner
  • Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:10:47 -0500

Is it feasible for you to install the old version of java on the new
virtual machine, or the new version of java on the old virtual
machine, and see if the ldappc behavior is consistent across versions
? It should be.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Gabriel Jimenez
<>
wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Here is my ldappd.xml file. Thanks!
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
> <ldappc>
>
>    <grouper>
>        <group-queries>
>            <subordinate-stem-queries>
>                <stem-list>
>                    <stem>ENT</stem>
>                </stem-list>
>            </subordinate-stem-queries>
>        </group-queries>
>        <groups structure="flat" root-dn="ou=Enterprise
> Groups,dc=nau,dc=edu" ldap-object-class="nauEduEnterpriseGroup"
>            ldap-rdn-attribute="cn" grouper-attribute="name">
>            <group-members-dn-list
> list-object-class="nauEduEnterpriseGroup"
>                list-attribute="nauEduManualMember"/>
>                 <group-attribute-mapping
> ldap-object-class="nauEduEnterpriseGroup">
>                         <group-attribute-map
>                            group-attribute="description"
>                            ldap-attribute="description"
>                         />
>                         <group-attribute-map
>                            group-attribute="nauEduFilter"
>                            ldap-attribute="nauEduGroupFilter"
>                         />
>                         <group-attribute-map
>                            group-attribute="nauEduGidNumber"
>                            ldap-attribute="gidnumber"
>                         />
>                </group-attribute-mapping>
>
>        </groups>
>    </grouper>
>
>    <source-subject-identifiers>
>        <source-subject-identifier source="NAULDAP"
> subject-attribute="uid">
>            <ldap-search base="ou=people,dc=nau,dc=edu"
> scope="subtree_scope" filter="uid={0}" />
>        </source-subject-identifier>
>    </source-subject-identifiers>
>
>    <ldap>
>        <context>
>            <parameter-list>
>                <parameter name="initial_context_factory"
> value="com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory" />
>                <parameter name="provider_url"
> value="ldap://ldap.nau.edu:389"; />
>                <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" />
>            </parameter-list>
>        </context>
>    </ldap>
>
> </ldappc>
>
>
>
> On 6/6/12 6:12 PM, "Tom Zeller"
> <>
> wrote:
>
>>The java version should not matter.
>>
>>Replying with your ldappc.xml configuration file attached, minus
>>passwords or any other private information, would be helpful.
>>
>>TomZ
>>
>>On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:42 PM,
>>""
>>
>><>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was recently tasked with moving the grouper provisioners from one
>>>physical
>>> 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
>>>installation
>>> stem was not being added when the provisioner tried to update ldap even
>>>though
>>> 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
>>>trying
>>> 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
>>>appreciate
>>> you help.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Gabe
>



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page