Place for beans related to metadata providers?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 12/11/14, 4:00 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:
>
>That sounds like a good idea, esp if we introduce the new 4th IdP-global
>set of config instances.  That would be the logical place for those.

Yes, what I was saying in the other email just now is that creating shared 
beans in the root context like that really *is* a 4th layer, just not an 
explicit one we have to design an API for.

>I didn't look yet to see how the per-profile configs are actually wired.

There are none at present, only a default for all RP/profile combos that 
have no overridden configurations, and that's all of them by default. Your 
4th layer, in terms of the RP subsystem, is just that default bean. 
Pushing that up and sharing it over to the metadata case I think creates 
the IdP default you're talking about.

>If we moved the config(s) up to user conf/security.xml, I
>suppose one way to handle the multiple injections and still allow user
>editing and possibility of divergence, would be to use bean aliases
>(@name) to give a single shared bean many names, and then have the
>profile configs injected with their specific named one.  If you want to
>customize a single per-profile config, remove that bean alias and
>declare a new bean with the name.  So the dependency would just be on
>the well-known bean names, for each profile.

Aliases might work, though I don't always like the extra step of having to 
remove the alias, easy to forget.

-- Scott