[IdP]<SAMLObjectName>

[Rod Widdowson]

I thought about this and decided not, but I'll take guidance.

As I go through there may be cases where this *is* needed (for instance in
those classes which bridge from one type to another : the mappers and the
encoders), but in those cases I am expecting to find that the method name is
already disambiguated.

R

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev-bounces at shibboleth.net [mailto:dev-bounces at shibboleth.net]
> On Behalf Of Tom Zeller
> Sent: 19 October 2013 14:34
> To: Shib Dev
> Subject: Re: [IdP]<SAMLObjectName>
> 
> > I took an AI yesterday to look at other places where there is a 1-1
match
> > between a SAML type and an IdP type with a view to ensuring that the
> code
> > makes it clear which type we are talking about.
> >
> > It seems that in addition to Attribute we also have AttributeValue and
> > RequestedAttribute.    There may be others, but these are the big ticket
> > items.
> >
> > I intend making the conversion Attribute -> IdPAttribute quite soon and
> > immediately after I'll do the same to RequestedAttribute.
> 
> Do method names need to change too, for example, getAttribute() ->
> getIdPAttribute() ?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to dev-
> unsubscribe at shibboleth.net