MidPoint 2019 Survey: ConnId-related results

It is perfect! Real engineering marvel. I love it.

0%

It is quite nice. It gives me all I need to work with connectors.

10.42%

Mixed feelings. There are some things that I like, but there are also painful things.

47.92%

It is showing its age. It works for us, but it will need major improvement in the future.

10.42%

It is a mess. I do not really like it.

4.17%

I do not know. I I’m not a connector developer.

25.00%

Other

2.08%

Simplicity. ConnId is simple and straightforward. I can have connector up and running in a couple of days.

33.33%

Compatibility. I like that 10 year old connectors still work like a charm.

37.50%

Community. I like that connectors are interchangeable between several IDM products.

35.42%

Stability. It just works. It does not change much, therefore it is unlikely that something will break.

22.92%

Schema. I love it when the connector discovers schema automatically and midPoint adapts to that.

47.92%

__UID__ and __NAME__. Those hardcoded attributes make everything easier.

2.08%

Other

6.25%

Complexity. ConnId is too complex. I cannot really understand how it works.

8.33%

Result handlers. Those things are enabled by default and they always get into my way.

27.08%

Age. The framework is too old. I would like to see something more modern. Something cooler.

12.50%

Holes. Some important functionality is missing. That holds me back.

39.58%

Rigidity. The development is too slow. I would like to see faster progress.

16.67%

Schema. I do not like to deal with that thing. I just want attributes and values. No schema in my meal, please.

10.42%

UID and NAME. Why I cannot use "username" or "uid" or "login" as identifiers?

10.42%

Other

8.33%

Support for complex attributes. I would like to pass structured data in attributes.

76.47%

Better schema support, e.g. ability to specify arbitrary identifiers (avoid the use of __UID__ and __NAME__).

47.06%

Better support for connectors in scripting languages.

26.47%

Result handlers. Make those optional or turn them off by default.

23.53%

Split "get" and "search" operations. Who’s idea it was to combine those anyway?

35.29%

Consistency support such as transactions or optimistic locking.

23.53%

Other

11.76%

Support for complex attributes. I would like to pass structured data in attributes.

50.00%

Better schema support, e.g. ability to specify arbitrary identifiers (avoid the use of __UID__ and __NAME__).

23.53%

Better support for connectors in scripting languages.

5.88%

Result handlers. Make those optional or turn them off by default.

2.94%

Split "get" and "search" operations. Who’s idea it was to combine those anyway?

5.88%

Consistency support such as transactions or optimistic locking.

5.88%

Other

5.88%

Yes! I’m using that a lot. I really depend on it.

8.89%

Sometimes. I use it in some deployments. I quite like it.

4.44%

Not much. I used it once or twice. I only use it if there is no other way.

11.11%

Never. I have never used it and I do not plan to.

40.00%

We have used it in the past, but we are not using it now.

8.89%

I do not know.

13.33%

Other

13.33%

Percentage relative to average answers to other questions

Java remote connector server

86.67%

27.08%

.NET remote connector server

20.00%

6.25%

I do not know.

53.33%

16.66%