idpv3 and web flow : flow-location or flow-location-pattern ?

[Ian Young]

On 12 Jun 2013, at 01:48, Tom Zeller <tzeller at dragonacea.biz> wrote:

> Do we want to map profile paths to flow definitions explicitly via
> configuration elements or implicitly via file system hierarchy ?

I lean towards the explicit option.  I know it's not very agile-web-2.0 "convention over configuration" but I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy.

> <bean-import resource="../../../abstract/common-flow-beans.xml" />
> 
> which is not attractive or maybe even a good idea because of the ../s.
> Importing beans via <bean-import resource="common-flow-beans.xml" />
> in common-flow.xml will not work because "relative paths in the parent
> flow will become relative to the child flow". [1]

The other thing I'd mention in passing is that although using relative paths with Spring resources seems to work most of the time, it doesn't with ours.  At base, that seems to be because we don't have an equivalent of their createRelative method.  As a result, because I find myself sometimes using Spring resources and sometimes our own, I tend to steer clear of relative paths entirely if I can.

	-- Ian


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4813 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20130612/ffb4b2da/attachment.bin