Custom metadata provider

[Brent Putman]

On 12/9/15 7:34 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> We have control over both sets of code and we can make adjustments
> unilaterally. Other people can't, so it's for them I think we
> maintain the split.

Probably deserves a whole thread but:

I thought the whole concern here was that external projects consuming
OpenSAML *must* depend on stuff in the -impl modules, since that's
where all the good stuff and actual functionality is located.
(excepting the XMLObject provider stuff which already has the registry
indirection layer).  But that's notionally an unrealistic burden and
requirement, because the -impls are unstable and can change in breaking
ways.  Ergo there's a problem: They have to depend on unstable stuff,
practically no way to avoid.

If we keep the split, it seems therefore required to modify the version
policy in some way for OpenSAML (as a library, distinct from a
standalone project like the IdP). Meaning possibly "impl" in OpenSAML
is not the same as "impl" in the IdP.  But I don't think we know how to
do that, or whether it's even possible to do sanely.

So I guess to me that whole ball of wax is "The OpenSAML API vs impl
Question".   (Which is just a case study in the "Bottomless Hell-Pit Of
Software Versioning, Dependency and Change Control Management".  In
bookstores next month, published by Masochist Press.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20151209/fa1968d8/attachment.html>