A chance to make changes to the AttributeFilter language Element names, and a request.

[Cantor, Scott]

On 9/9/15, 5:54 AM, "dev on behalf of Rod Widdowson" <dev-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>Which, for completeness leaves us with:
>
>AttributeValueString -> ValueString  
>	// Not about this but persuadable. ValueExact?
>
>AttributeValueRegex -> ValueRegex
>	// No problems with that (depending on what we do for AttributeValueString

I waffled but came down on the side that ValueString might be ok. But I don't feel strongly. I just think everything here is implicitly about an Attribute, so Value seems to inherently imply AttributeValue to me.

But I would drop the "String" part. I think Value and ValueRegex are fine.

>AttributeScopeString -> ScopeString 
>	// Not sure but would buy ValueScope or ScopeExact 
>	// (depending on what we do with AttributeValueString)
>
>AttributeScopeRegex -> ScopeRegex 
>	// (depends on what we do with AttributeValueString)

I think Scope is pretty unambiguous in this particular context, and would just use Scope and ScopeRegex.

>NumberOfAttributeValues -> NumberOfValues
>	// Seems OK to me

+1

>EntityAttributeExactMatch -> ????
>	// I don't think so
>
>EntityAttributeRegexMatch -> ????
>	// I don't think so

I agree, EntityAttribute is a specific thing.

>AttributeScopeMatchesShibMDScope -> ScopeMatchesShibMDScope
>	// Seems OK

Yes.

>AttributeInMetadata-> ???
>	// Persuadable, ideas?
>
>MappedAttributeInMetadata	
>	// Persuadable (maybe), ideas?

I would tend to leave those.

>My only comment at this stage is that this becomes a relatively complex upgrade and so, depending on how easy the xslt ends up, I would probably be less forceful about deprecating the old syntax.

I wasn't suggesting we'd be dropping it any time soon, but as far as the XSLT goes, it should be fairly bulletproof and I think pretty much an automatic conversion. It's just 1:1 replacements.

-- Scott