Shibboleth Developers

[Peter Schober <>]

* Russell Beall 
<>
 [2009-09-22 20:11]:
> Having established a well functioning IdP and being very familiar with  
> the current process, which I do not see as difficult, I would like to  
> see the packaging stay the same.  Furthermore, while a monolithic  
> packaging system may make it easier for first-time deployers, one of the 
> concepts I have seen as critical in the use of Shibboleth is having an 
> understanding of what is going on.  Having a monolithic deployment option 
> will just make it easier for newbies to consider that they don't really 
> need to understand some of the underlying structure and just then expect 
> it all to work out of the box.

<some:marker:for:the:ironically:challenged>
Following that train of thought many of the improvements to the 2.x
IdP must seem desasterous -- only making things easier for "the
newbies"? (Nate obviously is be after drawing in even more newbies to
generate more support requests -- for a bit of job security? Traitor!)
  Real men invested countless hours to tame that beast so let's
celebrate the status quo, or even better, make things even more
complex and confusing, to cut down on those pesky newbies.
  At the very least include a test in the installer scripts and turn
https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/SHIB2/IdPSkills into a multiple
choice quiz: "You don't seem to know how Java threads map to system
threads and what type of JVM parameters are associated with this.
Thank you for trying Shibboleth. Now go away."

Now if we only could get rid of GNU/Linux distributions (esp. those
with binary packages), high-level programming languages and all that
junk only attracting the clueless... O tempora o mores.
</some:marker:for:the:ironically:challenged>
-peter

PS: I don't care much about WAR vs. standalone, that's not my point.