Changes to web flow action proposal

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/17/13 6:47 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:
>
>Looking at this makes me think about the question:  ProfileAction or
>MessageHandler?

Yes.

>My thinking offhand is that, at the very least, something that operates
>on just the inbound, or just the outbound, message, especially things
>that are just checking or validating something, would be MessageHandlers.
> This would also be true of things that implement general SAML
>(non-profile) processing requirements.

Could be, sure. But what's going to instantiate and run them? This is why
I'm stuck on the idea of using ProfileAction alone, it has an execution
framework ready made to use.

>And so, for example, before we started talking about this new fully
>pushed down model, the schema validation one was in my mind one of the
>candidates for just becoming a MessageHandler, as are the ones that just
>validate an IssueInstant, do replay checking and so forth.
>
>Just wanted to get this out there before we get too far into this.

Would we have a MessageHandlerAction that was injected with
MessageHandlers and just ran the handlers as its action behavior?

How is that superior to just making them profile actions? Maybe it is, I'm
just not sure I see why yet.

It's true that a handler would be clearly operating on a subset of the
profile request context, but I expect lots of profile actions will be that
way.

-- Scott