Dynamic Metadata and Artifacts

[Cantor, Scott]

On 11/9/17, 11:04 AM, "dev on behalf of Rod Widdowson" <dev-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:

> Do we want to issue a warning if we ever encounter an artifact query for a 'Dynamic' provider (which means regexp, template or
> well known)?

If there are specific cases that would be known to be inappropriate (like treating the artifact source ID or location as an entityID), that seems like something to block, but I don't know if that's evident, I should probably review how the old code works.

> On the one hand it might be useful since in general it will work (because of caching) and when it doesn't the deployer will be
> clueless as to why.  

I don't think it's good to have it work "accidentally", I think the behavior should be consistent. If you can't bootstrap from it, you shouldn't do it.

> On the other if someone has a chain of providers with a Dynamic provider at the top then they will get noise.    
> Finally, I cannot envisage a big uptake for plain on "Dynamic" providers in V3, it will all be MDQ or LocalDynamic.

We can always adjust noise in various ways.

> The other possibility of course is to just refuse to resolve artifacts with the dynamic provider full stop.

At least in specific cases that's my thinking, if it's detectable.

-- Scott