re: Dependencies - not just for avoiding taxes!

amelkote — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:33:14 GMT

If I chose to use out-of-the-box user and mailbox provisioning in ADDS MA and tend to using codeless provisioning, then can I still keep business processes/worflows decoupled for the two sets of provisioning actions? And, by the way, is FIM going to support exchange provisioning (check box in ADDS MA) to Exchange 2010?

REF:

In a typical provisioning scenario, one would construct a base "Active Directory User Synchronization Rule" which, as the name implies, would create a new AD User object, flow the necessary base DN, samAccountName and name information. On top of that, you could then model a dependent Synchronization Rule for granting an Exchange mailbox. This Synchronization Rule would be dependent on the Active Directory User Synchronization Rule, and as a consequence would only have a single flow to the homeMDB attribute.

Bobby and Nima's ILM Blog : Dependencies - not just for avoiding … | Webmaster Tools

Sat, 02 May 2009 12:09:13 GMT

PingBack from http://www.netdeluxo.com/blog/blogs/bobby-and-nimas-ilm-blog-dependencies-not-just-for-avoiding/