Shibboleth Developers

[Tom Scavo <>]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:21:21 -0500, Scott Cantor 
<>
 wrote:
> > If the NameMapper class invoked the two mappings in sequence
> > (SharedMemoryShibHandle, then CryptoShibHandle), wouldn't that solve
> > the problem?
> 
> Yeah, but why bother? Just use the crypto handle. I can't imagine anyone not
> using it now. The shared memory thing is worthless for most production
> sites.

But the SharedMemoryShibHandle is the default mapping *and* it's
listed in the installation guide.  So you're saying this is going to
change in 1.3?

> Your X.509 case is the only likely example, and almost nobody uses them. So
> it's a serious niche case.

What about the other SAML formats (unspecified, emailAddress, and
WindowsDomainQualifiedName)?  Won't these have the same problem as
X509SubjectName?

Tom