All,
My current design supports PAGS group definitions as shown by the following
simple example:
<pags-group script="classpath://org/jasig/portal/io/import-pags-group_v4-1.crn">
<name>Member of Students (PAGS)</name>
<description>Member of Students group</description>
<selection-test>
<test-group>
<adhoc-group-test>
<include>
<group-name>Students</group-name>
</include>
<exclude>
<group-name>Test Users</group-name>
</exclude>
</adhoc-group-test>
</test-group>
</selection-test>
</pags-group>
Working on the implementation, I realized that there was no need for multiple
adhoc-group-test stanzas since all the tests in the surrounding test-group are
AND-ed together as are the group tests inside adhoc-group-test nodes.
As I consider persistence, it dawned on me that there was not need for a parent
adhoc-group-test for the inner member-of and not-member-of tests since there is
a 1-to-1 correspondence to the test-group.
Would the following be an improvement or is there an advantage to the extra
stanzas?
<pags-group script="classpath://org/jasig/portal/io/import-pags-group_v4-1.crn">
<name>Member of Students (PAGS)</name>
<description>Member of Students group</description>
<selection-test>
<test-group>
<member-of-group>Students</member-of-group>
<not-member-of-group>Test Users</not-member-of-group>
</test-group>
</selection-test>
</pags-group>
One thought is that testing for group membership could be more efficient if all
the group tests were done together. Yet, that code could be rolled up into the
test-group class, TestGroup.
Thoughts?
Benito J. Gonzalez - Unicon
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
480.558.2360
> <adhoc-group-test>
> <include>
> <group-name>Students</group-name>
> <group-name>Mobile Device Access</group-name>
> </include>
> <exclude>
> <group-name>Testers</group-name>
> </exclude>
> </adhoc-group-test>
--
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
