Naming Conventions for IdP Extensions

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/2/19, 3:48 AM, "dev on behalf of Daniel Lutz" <dev-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of daniel.lutz at switch.ch> wrote:

> To my knowledge, extensions shouldn't use the prefixes "idp." and "shibboleth." for properties
> and beans, respectively, as these are reserved for the IdP core.

Yes. The bean convention was deliberate and came about pretty early on, but the property thing was more organic and "oh, we probably should just go ahead and stick with that".

> Are there recommended rules how to name properties, beans, cookies and storage contexts
> in IdP extensions? (Or how not to name them?)

The advice for storage contexts generally speaking is to name them Java package style, using a reverse DNS name convention. We actually do that in some cases, but with some exceptions typically oriented around unique values like session IDs that aren't supposed to conflict anyway. So package naming in general will prevent conflicts.

I don't have a real answer for the cookie question, I'd have to review what we have now. I guess package naming probably works there too?

> Would it make sense to list such rules on the page

Yes.

-- Scott