Proposal on config for includeAttributeStatement

[Cantor, Scott]

On 7/23/14, 5:04 AM, "Rod Widdowson" <rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:

>> it doesn't cover the scenario in which you
>> need to resolve attributes in order to produce a NameID, which is
>> generally the case unless transients or database-backed persistents are
>> used.
>
>I'm not sure I understand why these are special - but I assume this
>springs
>from the separation of NameID from attribute resolution work you did.

Yes, those don't require any input from the attribute resolver. Though now
that I say that, I'm wrong about the persistent case. One could build a
database version of persistent ID that didn't require the resolver, but we
didn't do it that way. So it's strictly transient, which is the default
and common, but we can't assume it.

-- Scott