mace-opensaml-users - Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification
Subject: OpenSAML user discussion
List archive
- From: JC Estienney <>
- To:
- Subject: Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:10:00 +0100
OK Thank you for these explanations Jean-Côme Scott Cantor a écrit : Chad might be able to comment further, but it's possible we might need to look at changing that behavior, or at least provide some option for not doing that, like an overloaded marshall(XMLObject target, boolean newDocumentIfAlreadyMarshalled) or something similar. At the very least, unnecessarily adopting into a new Document is somewhat expensive.FWIW, my code doesn't give you the option, it just reuses the DOM tree if it's cached, or uses a new document if none is supplied in the call. If I needed it to do what you're describing, I'd just create my own document to give it, or release the DOM first.In any case, you probably realize that you don't really need to re-marshall there, since you just unmarshalled the object, and so it already has a DOM. Although this perhaps highlights a similar issue with the API - it nominally wasn't intended that people call getDOM() to get the XMLObject's Element, but instead call marshall(XMLObject) - but if marshall() always has potentially unwanted side-effects as it does, then that's a problem too. For now I suppose the only option is just use getDOM(), if you need a sub-Element from an already marshalled (or unmarshalled) tree.In my case, I definitely count on the fact that XMLObject::marshall() returns the existing DOM if I need it, because getDOM() would return NULL if it didn't have one, pushing extra checks into my code. -- Scott ***************************************************** "Le contenu de ce courriel et ses eventuelles pièces jointes sont confidentiels. Ils s'adressent exclusivement à la personne destinataire. Si cet envoi ne vous est pas destiné, ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, et afin de ne pas violer le secret des correspondances, vous ne devez pas le transmettre à d'autres personnes ni le reproduire. Merci de le renvoyer à l'émetteur et de le détruire. Attention : L'Organisme de l'émetteur du message ne pourra être tenu responsable de l'altération du présent courriel. Il appartient au destinataire de vérifier que les messages et pièces jointes reçus ne contiennent pas de virus. Les opinions contenues dans ce courriel et ses éventuelles pièces jointes sont celles de l'émetteur. Elles ne reflètent pas la position de l'Organisme sauf s'il en est disposé autrement dans le présent courriel." ****************************************************** |
begin:vcard fn;quoted-printable:ESTIENNEY Jean-C=C3=B4me n;quoted-printable:Jean-C=C3=B4me;ESTIENNEY email;internet: tel;work:02 41 79 66 99 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
- SAMLResponse signature verification, jc . estienney, 03/02/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Brent Putman, 03/02/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, JC Estienney, 03/04/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Brent Putman, 03/04/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, JC Estienney, 03/10/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Brent Putman, 03/10/2010
- RE: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Scott Cantor, 03/10/2010
- Message not available
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, JC Estienney, 03/11/2010
- Yet another signature verification problem, Tom Delorenzi, 03/16/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] Yet another signature verification problem, Chad La Joie, 03/16/2010
- RE: [OpenSAML] Yet another signature verification problem, Tom Delorenzi, 03/16/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] Yet another signature verification problem, Brent Putman, 03/16/2010
- RE: [OpenSAML] Yet another signature verification problem, Tom Delorenzi, 03/16/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Brent Putman, 03/10/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, JC Estienney, 03/10/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Brent Putman, 03/04/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, JC Estienney, 03/04/2010
- Re: [OpenSAML] SAMLResponse signature verification, Brent Putman, 03/02/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.