Shibboleth Developers

[Chad La Joie <>]

Well, at least on the IdP side, that wasn't the superficial reason I did 
it.  What I heard from people is that they were trying to do some 
strange slice-and-dice-and-tape-together things with their metadata. 
So, instead of assuming an ordered list of providers I created the 
chaining provider which was an ordered list but which people could 
extend to do whatever ordering they wanted.

Now, looking back over a few years of history, it turns out what people 
were saying they wanted wasn't really what they wanted.  So now, having 
to put metadata providers inside the chaining one just creates more 
hassle.  In the simplified IdP config I plan to do what Nate asked.  If 
more than one metadata provider is listed I'm going to internally 
construct a chaining metadata provider like we have today and dump them 
all in there.

On 8/17/10 8:02 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:
> > Ideally, one could just stick<MetadataProvider>  elements in the main
> > <ApplicationDefaults>  element without requiring the chaining provider.
> > This'd be particularly nice since people no longer need to deal with
> > chained SessionInitiator elements.
>
> I don't think there's much point since the original design of a pile of
> providers was also confusing to people and led to exactly this change.
>
> -- Scott

--
Chad La Joie
http://itumi.biz
trusted identities, delivered