locked
How to delete MV object and join with another Metaverse Object RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Hi,

    I have created two metaverse object type one containing the matched records(matched metaverse) and the other for unmatched records(unmatched metaverse).

    I project all the umatched records from Active Directory datasource to unmatched metaverse object type and join all the matched records into matched metaverse object type. Now when the unmatched record gets modified in AD datasource then it does not go for joining process instead only the attributes get modified in unmatched metaverse.

    What I want is that when the unmatched records from AD datasource modify and based on that modification if it could satisfy any of the join rule then it should be deleted from unmatched metaverse and joined with one of the records in matched metaverse.

    Need help!
    Thanks

    Adi
    Friday, December 19, 2008 2:00 PM

Answers

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     

    Peter, using two object types (one for matched and one for unmatched objects) is a recommended best practice to keep the number of disconnectors at a minimum.

     

    Adi, you can change the object type from unmatched to matched upon a join. This means, there is no need to delete the unmatched object.

     

    There is also some related information in conjunction with this topic in Correcting Incorrect Joins.  

     

     

    Cheers,

    Markus

     

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Markus Vilcinskas

    Technical Writer
    Identity Lifecycle Manager
    mailto:markvi@microsoft.com.NO_SPAM

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
    http://www.microsoft.com/info/copyright.htm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

     

    Monday, December 22, 2008 6:19 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Could you provide a bit more info on your ILM config, please?
    Which other MA's join/provision to which MV objects?

    What exaclty is the reason for creating MV object types, based on the connection they have (or have not) to a connector space?

    You could use extensions on the join and projection rules.
    But disconnecting an 'unmatched' MV object (without other joins) will cause deprovisioning...

    IMHO, you're creating a complex situation, while you probably shouldn't...

    Kind regards,
    Peter

    Peter Geelen - Sr. Consultant IDA (http://www.traxion.com)
    Friday, December 19, 2008 7:14 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Actually, I have two Metaverse object types 1. MatchedMV 2. UnmatchedMV and two MAs one is connected from HR data source (Authoritative data source) that only projects records to MatchedMV and the other MA that is connected to Active directory datasource joins the records that satisfy Join Rules should join the records in MatchedMV and if all join rules failed it project record into UnmatchedMV.

    However, If the record is updated in Active directory datasource and can satisfy join rules than it should be joined with the object in MatchedMV but due to its previous joining with UnmatchedMV the join rules doesn't applies on it.

    So what i want is that if the existing object is updated than the connected object (From AD) should be deleted from UnmatchedMV so that join rules runs again and the CSObject joined with MatchedMV.

    I hope this helps.
    Adi
    Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:39 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Why don't you use one and the same MV object type for both?

    Kind regards,
    Peter

    Peter Geelen - Sr. Consultant IDA (http://www.traxion.com)
    Sunday, December 21, 2008 8:46 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     

    Peter, using two object types (one for matched and one for unmatched objects) is a recommended best practice to keep the number of disconnectors at a minimum.

     

    Adi, you can change the object type from unmatched to matched upon a join. This means, there is no need to delete the unmatched object.

     

    There is also some related information in conjunction with this topic in Correcting Incorrect Joins.  

     

     

    Cheers,

    Markus

     

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Markus Vilcinskas

    Technical Writer
    Identity Lifecycle Manager
    mailto:markvi@microsoft.com.NO_SPAM

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
    http://www.microsoft.com/info/copyright.htm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

     

    Monday, December 22, 2008 6:19 PM
    Moderator