net.shibboleth.utilities.java.support.component.*

[Tom Zeller]

> I believe this work is all complete

Is there a compelling reason to provide a _protected_ setId() in
AbstractIdentifiedInitializableComponent ?

It seems simpler to me if we make setId() public. I guess the idea was
to "protect" the id, but we already do that somewhat by throwing an
exception if the id is set after initialization.

Looking through our projects for use of the protected setId() yields a
couple of cases in metadata.pipeline where it is overriden as public
anyway, and the rest of the handful of calls are in constructors or
via BeanNameAware.

My suggestion is that we make setId() public in
AbstractIdentifiedInitializableComponent, and then
AbstractIdentifiableInitializeableComponent will be unnecessary. That
would mean a rename of AbstractIdentifiedInitializableComponent to
AbstractIdentifiedIdentifiableInitializableComponent, for which I
would be happy to entertain any other shorter name.

I hope this makes sense.