shibboleth-dev - Re: separate Java SP
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Tom Scavo <>
- To: Walter Hoehn <>
- Cc: Shibboleth Development <>
- Subject: Re: separate Java SP
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:21:01 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dvB8HSuqIpp4eE77wQik9eyD8gHDQlywv7Wtuh8P7mJHZ+VfEQiy4qEniJ+27XN3hl87mz1xySYSI3PiDpQXolKBS6a4L+zJqJTy6rB2E5gQkLHF/hMEBJqkVcAmlLoPpFSMfJ7pUyNNwwN7fUZWgccQc3vaHs6ftFny3LgL7wE=
On 5/31/05, Walter Hoehn
<>
wrote:
>
> The 1.3 IdP and SP will not be released on the same schedule
> and we want to retain the flexibility to cut a point release for one
> without rev'ing the other.
Sure, I understand what you want to do. If you modify something in
the idp package, for instance, you release a new version of the IdP.
The problem is the shared code (common, log, metadata, xml). If you
modify any of this core code, you modify both components by
definition. Doesn't matter if they live in the same webapp context or
not.
> This is the main motivation behind
> separate packages, even though they will contain mostly the same stuff.
Seems like mainly a cosmetic distinction. Since they share code, they
are dependent upon one another despite the apparent separation into
two distinct webapp contexts.
I really don't see how this is going to work without some additional
structure. From my vantage point (as a developer working off CVS
HEAD), investing additional time in the Java SP is a somewhat risky
proposition.
Tom
- Re: separate Java SP, Tom Scavo, 06/01/2005
- Re: separate Java SP, Walter Hoehn, 06/01/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.