Shibboleth XML Configuration file Validation

[Cantor, Scott]

On 9/26/12 5:04 PM, "Mark O'Quinn" <mark1oquinn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Do you think there's something missing, wrong or that needs to be
>improved? Any suggestion is very welcome.

Couple of thoughts:

- I wouldn't expect you'd ever touch relying-party.xml if your use case is
provisioning SPs. That should rarely be needed.

There may be interactions between your proposed reaction to a failure and
the normal way the code deals with preventing corrupt config objects from
replacing live/working ones. Maybe you're operating at a level that would
supersede that, I'm not sure.

>Now, my next step is to add concurrency protection. I saw some lines
>(which I'll start study) in the class
>SAMLMDRelyingPartyConfigurationManager that I believe are the ones
>Shibboleth uses:

Right, well, the other feedback is that all the work is in concurrency
safety.

Sounds pretty interesting in general, though. Might be the seeds of a
service interface we could incorporate or package as an extension and
would be great code to have as an example.

-- Scott