Attribute filter

[Cantor, Scott]

On 6/24/14, 11:38 AM, "Rod Widdowson" <rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>As *currently* configured the EntityAttributeInMetadata assumes a mapping
>configuration derived from the attribute resolver (just the same as the
>RequestedAttribute), and that works surprisingly well:

Oh, this is the "full" one. I'm still getting lost with all the names, and
not sure which ones are just operating on strings and brute force.

>Although it might become confusing.  You and I have discussed providing a
>different mapping configuration for EntityAttributes.  This is all a bit
>open-ended in my mind since I don't have a  good feel for the sorts of
>deployments that would need this level of control.

That's my concern. I think for this use case, having a simple one that
doesn't require the mapping layer will be the more popular choice because
it doesn't require pre-configuration. That can just use the SAML name(s)
directly.

>That's one reason why I want this to remain undocumented - to give us room
>play around with this to see what the most natural approach is.

+1

I need to get straight what's in 2.4 and what's new here and make sure the
names make sense.

-- Scott