Topic for tomorrow : InitializeOutboundMessageContext

[Cantor, Scott]

On 2/7/14, 2:43 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

>The other alternative is to just have the confidentiality and integrity
>eval logic live somewhere outside the encoders.  But since that's often
>binding-specific, that doesn't seem very natural, and we'd have to have
>and maintain parallel sets of code for each binding we support.

Well, I was going to say, we (maybe I) have kind of followed a model of
creating "descriptors" for things that need to be configured with
associated data, so we could do that with the bindings and basically
extend the lookup function to be something that returns one of these
descriptors. That would include, but not be limited to, the encoder, and
adding a binding would just mean adding a descriptor.

It does seem a little odd to me to ask an encoder for properties of a
binding. It's not wrong or anything, but it isn't any less wrong to
formally describe a binding, and have the encoder be one of its properties.

>No, the yuck factor for me is just the requirement to make use of the
>encoders in places that aren't actually doing encoding.  It's yuckier in
>v3 than v2 because of the loosely coupled nature of the Webflow design,
>vs the monolithic ProfileHandler in v2 (in the latter it's all inside a
>single class, or at least in its base classes).

I think it's less yucky to do this via a binding descriptor (which is
obviously captured/referenced on the BindingContext). YMMV.

-- Scott