Straw-man for security parameter placement

[Brent Putman]

On 3/12/14 9:55 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> On 3/12/14, 9:52 PM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
>> I think now that I see the different cases, I'm inclined to separate the
>> parameter types up after all, and I'm wondering if maybe the *Parameter
>> beans should just be context types so that they can be directly attached
>> into the tree instead of having to wrap them. Does that seem crazy? You
>> had said they're "just beans" and that's consistent with most of the
>> context types.
> Actually that seems like a bad coupling now that I think about it, 

Me too. :-)

> and not
> necessary. I can just create an EncryptionContext to wrap the
> EncryptionParameters and add flags for what to encrypt, and that's
> probably a better separation of concerns.

That actually seems like the best solution all-around for SAML
encryption, since it's all in the profile actions.

>
> My concern is just that I'd rather not have to re-eval the condition flags
> in case they are expensive in some way, and just be able to track the
> result at the time I check them initially.

Yes, I agree.