OpenSAML user discussion

[Brent Putman <>]

> I believe that like the C++ code, the library relies on a model of a
> pluggable ContentReference abstraction of some kind that wraps the reference
> and transforms involved and in the case of SAML objects, the reference
> syntax and transform set is entirely fixed because it's defined by SAML.


Yes, that's how you'd do it in Java as well.  As Scott already said,
though, if you're talking about enveloped Signatures on Assertions, etc,
i.e. the SAML signature profile, there's probably very little reason to
do this.