OpenSAML user discussion

[Brent Putman <>]

Scott Cantor wrote:
> The problem is that with things like AttributeValue, where use of xsi:type 
> is discouraged, you *will* (I think) get an XSAny on the way back in. So 
> the cost of creating the code has to be balanced by that.
>
>   

Yeah, if you don't have an xsi:type present, you will get an XSAny when
unmarshalling.  I meant to note that asymmetry vis-a-vis having a
provider  for a custom type for the generating and marshalling messages 
to send vs. processing received messages.

On the other hand... if the sender did include xsi:type, and if it's
OpenSAML processing it, it would handle that just fine with the custom
provider type, assuming you have properly registered it of course.