Yes, I agree.
2012/12/17 Fabio Martelli <[email protected]> > > Il giorno 15/dic/2012, alle ore 13.16, ernst Developer ha scritto: > > > Hi Fabio, > > > > This seems a very good idea. > > You could also consider a complete new mapping tab page on which we could > > do the sync mapping. In that case the current mapping is used for > > propagation. > > Hi Ernst, > yes, this is an alternative but I'd prefer to have all the mappings about > the same resource into a single tab. > I think that, in this way, mapping configuration would be simple and easy > to manage (in terms of troubleshooting). > Don't you agree? > > Regards, > F. > > > Regards, > > Ernst > > > > > > 2012/12/14 Denis Signoretto <[email protected]> > > > >> > >> Another way to get the same result couldn't be > >> creating a specialization between sync and provisioned resources? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Denis > >> > >>> -----Messaggio originale----- > >>> Da: Fabio Martelli [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> Inviato: venerdì 14 dicembre 2012 16:55 > >>> A: [email protected] > >>> Oggetto: Schema Mapping improvement > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi guys, > >>> since I see a strong limitation about the schema mapping > >>> configuration I'd like to discuss with you about an improvement. > >>> > >>> From my PPOV Syncope should give the possibility to specify > >>> two different mappings for synchronization and propagation. > >>> > >>> My suggestion is to provide two boolean flags: the former to > >>> specify a propagation mapping and the latter to specify a > >>> synchronization mapping. > >>> Of course, each mapping must have a flag to true at least. > >>> > >>> WDYT? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> F. > >>> > >> > >
