Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 9 Next »

Shibboleth Developer's Meeting, May 24, 2013

Attendees: 

Call Administrivia

Next call is next Friday.

60 to 90 minute call window.


 

Brent

 

Daniel

 

Ian

 

Marvin

 

Rod

  • Attribute Filtering.  After discussion with Tom, completed refactoring (unfortunately some may need unrefactoring)
  • Started on the the rest of the "Policy" type predicates.
  • Design note for AttributeInMetadata and AttributeInRequest under  construction.

Scott

Development time this week spent on SP fixes / testing, updating libraries for Windows build, and coordinating with some third parties on the timing of the next release.

Tentative release date for 2.5.2 is now June 18th.

Will be prepping packages and builds this week and next for testing. Once things are ready to go, I'll get back to V3 work. Will probably look at pulling in Marvin's suggestions on the storage API next.

Tom

AI : Tom should send note regarding next steps for security configuration.

AI : Roadmap next steps.

AI : API changes

Refactoring idp-attribute-filter-api, looks like a return to v2, with some differences. Not sure why v3 diverged originally, let us avoid design regressions.

Be deliberate when changing API artifacts. Special svn notifications ?

Continue to refactor "MatchFunctor" to "Matcher" and its evaluatePolicyRule(AttributeFilterContext) to matches(AttributeFilterContext).

Q : "What does a Matcher do?"
A : "A Matcher matches (an attribute filter context) and it gets matching values (for an attribute in the context)".

As mentioned in Javadoc, a base AbstractMatcher class could require concrete implementations to provide just getMatchingValues(), since a default matches() implementation could iterate over the Attributes in the AttributeFilterContext and return true the first time getMatchingValues() returns a non-empty set. Not optimal, of course.

So, MatchFunctor might exist in the schema only.

As mentioned on a previous dev call, for consistency, I thing "filtering" should be refactored to "filter" in Java class and package names, and the AttributeFilteringEngine should become AttributeFilter. To match the AttributeResolver maybe AttributeFilterer is more appropriate, but no.

Readlock on AttributeFilterService.filterAttributes() ?


Topics

 

Decisions

Coding convention : getLdapUrl or getLDAPURL ?

You will have to be logged in to register a vote, otherwise nothing will appear below this in the page.

 

 


  • No labels