none
simplified provisioning

    General discussion

  • Hello,

    lastly I was thinking about the way the current provisioning works. Right now there are 2 options. The one is using synchronization rules creation in FIM portal application, the other involves an "old-school" metaverse extension library compiling. The benefit of the second one is better flexibility and ability to write functions that are currently unavailable through the portal UI.

    So I was thinking about some intermediate state that would combine the benefits of both current states. I would like to see a new provisioning property option right in the configuration of MA that would allow me to configure specific filter specifying what kind of objects I want to provision, give them some general rule for DN creation etc. It could be quite similar as it is right now for specifying connector filter, join and projections rules.

    By this approach I would have this provisioning rules attached directly to the MA configuration.

    What is your opinion about this?

    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:16 AM

All replies

  • I'm not sure you know that you actually could combine the two options?

    I believe this is still true!..
    http://blogs.technet.com/b/doittoit/archive/2008/11/18/hybrids-not-just-for-you-prius-fans.aspx

    //Henrik


    Henrik Nilsson, ILM/FIM MVP Blog: http://www.idmcrisis.com Company: Cortego (http://www.cortego.se)
    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:24 PM
  • Yes, I know that, but maybe you didn't understand me well. Instead of writing my own provision code into the extension library, I think that it would be much simpler and clearer to have the ability defining the provision rules directly into the MA similar as it is right now with projection,joining rules. This has nothing to do with the new synchronization rules approach or metaverse rules extension. It's just an idea for a new provisioning approach, that could simplify the development.
    Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:58 AM
  • This would have been a great thing for MIIS and ILM but since Microsoft didn't supply that functionality then probably because it would be too hard to define provisioning policies I don't think this would be something we could ever ask for now since there's a possibilty to finally do declarative provisioning using the FIM Service that also increases their CAL sales.

    Maybe this is something we'll see or could ask for in the next version of the sync engine...

    //Henrik


    Henrik Nilsson, ILM/FIM MVP Blog: http://www.idmcrisis.com Company: Cortego (http://www.cortego.se)
    Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:52 AM
  • I would prefer to leave everything 'as is'

    I have most of provisioning done by MV extension as it works faster than FIM sync rules.

    And I would not going to migrate all the code to FIM WFs as it gives no benefits for me.

    But if you're building from scratch, small system with couple of MAs - FIM Sync rules are better choice. I hope there will be a day when you'll be able to purchase a good FIM library with all needed actions like: generate unique account name, send notification with new and old values (not all attributes but few selected), find any object and get its property value then store it in WF data and so on... 

     

    ps. guess why MV Extension rules for provisioning have more weight than sync rules? 

    Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:36 AM