This is a summary of survey that Evolveum has conducted in October-November 2019. This page shows details about ConnId-related questions. For the full survey please see MidPoint 2019 Survey Results.
Approximate number of valid answers in this part of survey: 48
What do you think about ConnId connector framework?
|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%|
What do you like about ConnId?
|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%|
What do you hate about ConnId?
|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%|
What improvements would you like to see in ConnId?
|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%|
Which of those ConnId improvements would you consider to be a highest priority?
Single-choice questions, designed to get some information about the hottest problems in ConnId.
|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.
Do you use remote connector server?
|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.
|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%|
Which remote connector server do you use?
multi-choice question. This questions got a low number of answers (15), therefore the percentages may be misleading.
|Questions||Percatege relative to answers to this question||Percentage relative to average answers to other questions|
Java remote connector server
|.NET remote connector server||20.00%|
|I do not know.||53.33%||16.66%|