v3 consent to attribute release : model terms-of-use as attribute ?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 9/30/14, 1:42 PM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

>
>I don't think I necessarily suggested that, although it's not impossible
>to do that. I was assuming we'd use a configured token of some sort that
>would be mapped into the text through the MessageSource interface, much
>like the error events. My thinking was that the token itself would be
>thing we'd record rather than hashing the message, since that way the
>token itself is your versioning tool and you can adjust wording and such
>without worrying about invalidating decisions.

So, roughly, say you have a webflow configured at e.g.,
/profile/interceptor/tou. It requires that the InterceptorFlowDescriptor
type be a subclass, TermsInterceptorFlowDescriptor, and the token I speak
of above is a field you populate in the config into that descriptor object.

Then the flow itself looks at the InterceptorContext to get the
descriptor, tests and casts down to get the token, and maps that to the
text with the MessageSource interface.

That was my general idea. One flow, easy to configure as many times as
desired using interceptors.xml or whatever we call it, just a couple of
things to populate to get it working.

Way back when, when I talked about TOU and consent being the same, I was
really just saying I wanted to generalize the whole concept for config and
storage, and the interceptor idea is the full generalization that goes
beyond those two cases to anything that happens to fit. I wasn't thinking
about attributes, really.

-- Scott