Either will work, but the URM service may have more overhead than the AD Service2 as it can be used for any label, and calls into other services.

The overhead between the two systems is negligible. Active Directory is for going specifically to AD.

UMUser is actually part of K2's identity management mechanisms. If the users you are going to be looking up are going to be participating in a K2 workflow, it might be a good idea to use UMUser as that will also cause the use your are retrieving to be cached or have their cache updated in K2. While the UMUser can go against any registered user manager in K2. Those are specified by label which should help mitigate any overhead concerns.

If you can tell us a bit about the use case you are addressing the community can help give better qualified answers.

Hope this helped.

S.

I am looking for a best practice, i am aware the URM service is using the K2 database, and i was wondering if it would better for the system to connect directly to AD.

I use URM for K2 roles which is fine, but when i am looking to read back user details from AD, i tend to use AD service 2.

Both have there benefits and limitations.

The method i required is pulling back nested AD groups which currently AD service 2 doesnt have, but URM does. Should i create the method and add it to ADservice2?

I am mainly interested in performance and best practice.

Thanks

Leeann

Hi Leeann,

There really isn't a "best practice" for this use case as both of these mechanisms are resolving against AD. If we are talking performance, you might actually see better performance out of the UMUser object given that is does have a built in caching mechanism and therefore wouldn't be having to go directly to AD for each call.

The situation you are looking at it is basically six of one and a half dozen of another. Your decision point is going to come down to what will accomplish the requirement and from what you have been telling us in the thread only one of the two services can meet that need.

S.