Shibboleth Developers

["Scott Cantor" <>]

> Exactly.  So an alternative approach is to write SAML interfaces and
> implementations in Shib (or OpenSAML, rather) and let others build on
> those interfaces as needed or use the provided implementations
> straightaway.  I think this is where OpenSAML is headed right now, so
> I guess I'm questioning this "other API" approach in light of a
> modular, extensible version of OpenSAML.  If I have to integrate my
> middleware with Shib, why not layer in SAML interfaces as required?

Biggest reason is language. Java, C++, C, C#, Perl, PHP, VB, Ruby,
Python...which ones are we supposed to support?

This is the primary argument being used today by some to justify throwing
out all the existing XML-based standards as unworkable on the Internet and
reinventing everything back to name/value.

-- Scott