OpenSAML user discussion

["Scott Cantor" <>]

> > I don't know whether Chad had planned to change this behavior or not.
I'd
> > have to see how it would work in the general case before I would change
my
> > mind.
> 
> Here's a possible implementation of equals in SAMLNameIdentifier:

By "general case", I meant for everything in the library for all possible
cases. I think that's infeasible, and unnecessary because Object.equals() is
not meant to be used this way. It needs only a reasonable, consistent
implementation, and I think it has one.

It would be far worse to have some of the classes supply one that behaves
differently from the rest because they happen to be easily implementable or
make more intuitive sense to some people.

Right now, they all work exactly the same and two copies of the same data
are simply not equal. I don't see that changing.

OTOH, supplying a set of useful Comparators (see Chad's last email) may be a
very good idea, even some that behave differently for different use cases.

-- Scott