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

[Brent Putman]

On 6/12/13 9:47 AM, Tom Zeller wrote:
> I really hope I figured out how to keep the flow definitions external
> to the war and then moved on from that workspace, but I need to
> revisit.

As I mentioned in the note I just sent, it certainly works fine to use a
flow-location along with a file:// URL base-path.

Actually, what *didn't* work was a pattern like this with a file:// URL
base-path:

<webflow:flow-location-pattern value="/**/*-flow.xml"/>

I didn't spend any time figuring out why, maybe with some tweaks that
would work as well.


> Yes, but remember that Web Flow inheritance is actually merging, and
> resource paths are relative to the child, not the parent. In your
> testbed, the parent and child flows are in the same directory,
> somewhat masking the <bean-import /> merging behavior.

Ah, ok. That makes sense.  That would then lead to my next question: Is
there any advantage, do we gain anything, by trying to organize the
abstract and concrete flows in some complicated directory structure?  If
a single, simple flat directory containing the abstract and concreate
and their associated beans files would simplify things, maybe that's the
way to go - at least for all the artifacts related to a given
protocol/standard, e.g. SAML vs CAS vs OpenID, etc. It's unlikely we'd
share things across those any way.  As much as I like to organize things
in directories (really, not kidding), perhaps the KISS principle applies
here.