OpenSAML user discussion

[Asa Hardcastle <>]

Cool. Thank you for the clarification!  I am glad I'm not the only one  
working late on Friday.  ;)

asa


On Feb 15, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:

> > Is there something missing in my understanding?  What is not
> > appropriate about this?
>
> Just because WSF might assume one signature child, that still  
> doesn't make
> that base class appropriate. It's just not the same use case as a  
> single
> reference to the parent element.




--
Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib
Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7