shibboleth-dev - RE: [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution.
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: "Rod Widdowson" <>
- To: <>
- Subject: RE: [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution.
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 13:54:14 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=steadingsoftware.com; h=from:to :references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= steadingsoftware.com; b=mK9nrku2P/RTqHBmunaLaxF3NrBf8mZjEwDiGDFG p+asL3oKU72klmMgrt1/EdJo7IBewzYMsUbYQ7B/1R1RpxFUBv+ZJNaz5skAd/hE DVHlEXzx9i54oHRgxaPFcIoXgMskVwjTri5a3esSQxH/HYzL62AgZOTgtLBIqCsi XrY=
OK, thanks. That makes perfect sense except..
> In terms of documentation, there should not be any changes to the
> configuration of the attribute definitions so all the v2 documentation
> should be effectively the same for v3.
and
> For the velocity and scriptlet attribute definitions you don't need any
> additional data, you'll just past the service specific context object to
> velocity or the scriptlet.
The trouble here of course is that (amongst other things) these definitions
are documented to take a parameter of type
edu.internet2.middleware.shibboleth.common.profile.provider.BaseSAMLProfileRequestContext
Which leaves us with three choices:
1) Do as good an approximation to a BaseSAMLProfileRequestContext as possible
(within the supported APIs framework and even then
only as much as feasible) and make that available
2) Change the documentation to state that it gets a
net.shibboleth.idp.attribute.resolver.AttributeResolutionContext
3) Do both, but deprecate the old mechanism/surround with "not
guaranteed/YMMV" verbiage.
I actually kinda favour doing (3), but I suspect that we will have to do (2).
Either way some documentation change will be needed.
None of this is urgent right now of course...
/R
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
>
>
> [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of
> Chad La Joie
> Sent: 17 May 2011 20:24
> To:
>
> Subject: Re: [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution.
>
> In v2, the context object that you used was at the bottom of a very
> involved inheritance hierarchy. In v3, there will be many context
> objects in a tree structure. Each service will take, as an argument, a
> context object specific to that service and that object may take a
> parent. This allows the service-specific object to sit in a larger tree
> of context objects.
>
> For the velocity and scriptlet attribute definitions you don't need any
> additional data, you'll just past the service specific context object to
> velocity or the scriptlet. In cases where you do need additional data
> you'll navigate the context object tree. So, if for example you were
> looking for the user's session you would get the parent context and then
> ask it for the SessionContext object. Then from the SessionContext
> object you'd get session-specific information.
>
> In terms of documentation, there should not be any changes to the
> configuration of the attribute definitions so all the v2 documentation
> should be effectively the same for v3.
>
> On 5/17/11 1:32 PM, Rod Widdowson wrote:
> > This is another also "mostly dev only" question...
> >
> > Some of the attribute resolvers need a view on the wider world outside
> > attributes when they run
> (e.g.
> > PrincipalAuthenticationMethodDefinition), or actually add such a view to
> > the context passed on to
> the "user" (Velocity & Scripted).
> >
> >
> > Obviously the way that the plumbing is done in IdP3 is quite different,
> > but is the idea that
> something like
> > getAttributeRequestContext() is going to be added to
> net.shibboleth.idp.attribute.resolver.AttributeResolutionContext (or
> possibly
> > its parent class?).
> >
> > If so:
> > Shall I just leave the definitions that have the need for such a call
> > until the plumbing is done?
> The Velocity and Scripted
> > definitions can be added now of course - they will just have a more
> > restricted view of the world
> until the plubing is done.
> >
> > If not:
> > How will this plumbing be done? I'm happy to wait and see, or even be
> > told to RTFCode...
> >
> > On a related matter, just as it is easier to write tests before you write
> > the code (or at best
> shortly after) it is easiest to write
> > documentation at the same time as the code. Where the plugins are
> > identical of course new
> documentation is a no-op, but in cases
> > where APIs have changed it would be nice to capture at least a framework
> > document now.
> >
> > So what is the plan for V3 documentation? If things are not ready yet
> > I'm happy to just dump stuff
> in my personal space and move it
> > over at a later date.
> >
> > /Rod
> >
> >
>
> --
> Chad La Joie
> http://itumi.biz
> trusted identities, delivered
- [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution., Rod Widdowson, 05/17/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution., Chad La Joie, 05/17/2011
- RE: [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution., Rod Widdowson, 05/18/2011
- Re: [Shib-Dev] Shib3 IdP: Attribute resolution., Chad La Joie, 05/17/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.