Shibboleth Developers

["Tom Scavo" <>]

On 3/6/06, Scott Cantor 
<>
 wrote:
>
> >  type="Principal"/>
>
> But I probably wouldn't hard-map it to something named Principal, of course.

Well, my extension can't override NameMapper anyway, but in general
why not use type="Principal"?  Every instance of this new class relies
on the %PRINCIPAL% placeholder to construct the name identifier, so in
that sense the type value is appropriate.  Moreover, using the old
syntax essentially replaces the current PrincipalNameIdentifier with
the new class, which I still think is a good idea.

Regardless, I'll leave that decision up to you.  What I'll do is
provide a new class PrincipalNameIdentifierMapping that inherits from
BaseNameIdentifierMapping as described.  We'll go from there.

Tom