Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.
191 views

What's more preferable Integration or Entity Activity?


Hi! I need to create a role in a workflow. There are two ways I know:
using Integration Activity (through IDM endpoint) and Entity Activity
(dial with LDAP directly?).
Which one is preferable? So far I didn't use Integration Activity but
used only Entity Activity. As I can see now that Integration Activity
work synchronously and next activity will not start until Integration
Activity finish and send back response. Entity Activity as I understand
works asynchronously and it doesn't wait for its underlying job will
have been finished before code flow passes control to the next Activity.

So now Integration Activity looks more preferable for me than Entity.
Any thoughts I missed?


--
hello_amigo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello_amigo's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=211
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=52579

Labels (1)
0 Likes
4 Replies
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: What's more preferable Integration or Entity Activity?

hello amigo <hello_amigo@no-mx.forums.netiq.com> wrote:
>
> So now Integration Activity looks more preferable for me than Entity.
> Any thoughts I missed?
>


Use integration activity. I don't believe that the other method you
suggested is supported by NetIQ as a method to create a role.

--
If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface, show
your appreciation and click on the star below...
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: What's more preferable Integration or Entity Activity?

On 01/13/2015 10:35 AM, hello amigo wrote:
>
> Hi! I need to create a role in a workflow. There are two ways I know:
> using Integration Activity (through IDM endpoint) and Entity Activity
> (dial with LDAP directly?).
> Which one is preferable? So far I didn't use Integration Activity but
> used only Entity Activity. As I can see now that Integration Activity
> work synchronously and next activity will not start until Integration
> Activity finish and send back response. Entity Activity as I understand
> works asynchronously and it doesn't wait for its underlying job will
> have been finished before code flow passes control to the next Activity.
>
> So now Integration Activity looks more preferable for me than Entity.
> Any thoughts I missed?
>
>

Greetings,
Please use the Integration Activity as the object will be created to
comply with our "schema" requirements.

The reason is that the when you create an object via LDAP (Entity
Activity) there will not be any "schema" validation because you are
directly updating via ldap. Therefore, (and I have seen this with some
customers) the object was created. But, it will not comply and caused
problems with different areas. Such as:

User Application UI
User Application SOAP/REST endpoints not working correctly with the object
Role and Resource Driver (granting or revoking either the object
directly {if it is a Role or Resource} or on the object {If it is a
user,group,or container})
Designer (import or deploy)


Depending upon the version of IDM you are using, there is also a REST
activity.

--

Sincerely,
Steven Williams
Lead Software Engineer
NetIQ
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: What's more preferable Integration or Entity Activity?

On 01/13/2015 12:41 PM, Steven Williams wrote:
> On 01/13/2015 10:35 AM, hello amigo wrote:
>>
>> Hi! I need to create a role in a workflow. There are two ways I know:
>> using Integration Activity (through IDM endpoint) and Entity Activity
>> (dial with LDAP directly?).
>> Which one is preferable? So far I didn't use Integration Activity but
>> used only Entity Activity. As I can see now that Integration Activity
>> work synchronously and next activity will not start until Integration
>> Activity finish and send back response. Entity Activity as I understand
>> works asynchronously and it doesn't wait for its underlying job will
>> have been finished before code flow passes control to the next Activity.
>>
>> So now Integration Activity looks more preferable for me than Entity.
>> Any thoughts I missed?
>>
>>

> Greetings,
> Please use the Integration Activity as the object will be created to
> comply with our "schema" requirements.
>
> The reason is that the when you create an object via LDAP (Entity
> Activity) there will not be any "schema" validation because you are
> directly updating via ldap. Therefore, (and I have seen this with some
> customers) the object was created. But, it will not comply and caused
> problems with different areas. Such as:
>
> User Application UI
> User Application SOAP/REST endpoints not working correctly with the object
> Role and Resource Driver (granting or revoking either the object
> directly {if it is a Role or Resource} or on the object {If it is a
> user,group,or container})
> Designer (import or deploy)
>
>
> Depending upon the version of IDM you are using, there is also a REST
> activity.
>

Greetings,
Alex is correct that we do not "support" creating Roles via ldap.
What I provided, helps to explain a bit more of why that is.



--

Sincerely,
Steven Williams
Lead Software Engineer
NetIQ
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: What's more preferable Integration or Entity Activity?


Thanks a lot! I got it.


--
hello_amigo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello_amigo's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=211
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=52579

0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.