shibboleth-dev - shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: "Howard Gilbert" <>
- To: <>
- Subject: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:52:57 -0500
The C++ and Java Service Providers have potential
differences in their configuration philosophy. Currently the same configuration
file generates the same result thanks to careful programming. Everything you need is already part of the protocol and
configuration schemas. I would argue that the current C++ code and the
resulting configuration examples assume some redundancy in items that need not
be redundant. There are some interesting possibilities here if we are willing
to draw some distinctions. Or maybe not. I have written a rather extensive discussion of the
interplay between parameters, and lay some proposals on the table for a broader
interpretation. See http://tp.its.yale.edu/shib/tiki-index.php?page=ShireUrl |
- shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Howard Gilbert, 11/05/2004
- speaking of the java class, Mark Wilcox, 11/05/2004
- Re: speaking of the java class, Walter Hoehn, 11/05/2004
- RE: speaking of the java class, Mark Wilcox, 11/05/2004
- Re: speaking of the java class, Walter Hoehn, 11/05/2004
- Re: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Tom Scavo, 11/05/2004
- RE: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Mark Wilcox, 11/05/2004
- RE: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Scott Cantor, 11/05/2004
- RE: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Howard Gilbert, 11/05/2004
- RE: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Scott Cantor, 11/05/2004
- RE: shireURL, providerId, applicationId, and target parameters, Howard Gilbert, 11/05/2004
- speaking of the java class, Mark Wilcox, 11/05/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.