Shibboleth Developers

[Simon McLeish <>]

Hi Scott,

I think that we in the UK are most likely to have an opinion, given the
large number of sites that seem to be keen to use ADFS as their IdP
which requires SPs to enable the extension, but I think this isn't going
to affect the installation so I don't think we'd mind. (We don't want a
situation where it requires more than just recongfiguration to enable
the extension, but that's there already and presumably won't change.) I
guess what I'm saying is: don't make it harder to change an existing
installation to enable the extension, but anything else doesn't really
matter.

Cheers,
Simon

Scott Cantor wrote:
> This is really just a code organizational question, but I thought I'd see if
> anybody feels strongly about it, since I don't.
>
> Currently, the ADFS plugin for the SP is a separate library that can be
> loaded (or not) to enable that capability in the software.
>  
> What I was wondering was whether people would prefer that I continue to keep
> the code in a separate library, or move it into the main SP library where
> the SAML 1 and 2 protocol support handlers are implemented.
>
> The main issue is just runtime code size and a little extra Makefile work
> for me. Either way you have to explicitly enable it to use it, so it's not
> forced on anybody either way.
>
> I also plan to include a skeletal "plugin" project that will facilitate
> people who want to write their own plugins of whatever API, so not having it
> separated out won't really remove any useful "sample" code either.
>
> Anybody care?
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
>