shibboleth-dev - RE: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: "Cantor, Scott E." <>
- To: "" <>
- Subject: RE: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:06:36 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
> We have the notion of the default provider that can be registered, but
> the builder, marshaller and unmarshaller for that must be requested
> explicitly. They are never returned just because you failed to find the
> specific one you asked for. I guess that could be an option, but it
> would just be trading one one fatal RuntimeException for another, like
> you said, so I'd agree that it doesn't really help much in this case.
Another avenue is to say that we should check for *some* builders, such as
extensions like this, vs. changing every call to a built-in one. Over time,
some might migrate from checked to unchecked, but the old checks don't hurt
anything.
-- Scott
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Halm Reusser, 01/05/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
- RE: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
- RE: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
- RE: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Halm Reusser, 01/07/2011
- RE: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Cantor, Scott E., 01/06/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Idp-ext-delegation & 2.2 idp, Brent Putman, 01/06/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.