<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/17/14 8:35 PM, Tom Zeller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMNmQDQ8NXGxus+kMWP6oXQ9Xona8a0L_vgw5G3UCj2tz4AQfQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I just checked and see that we are mounting the
DispatcherServlet as the / path. That probably does muck with
resolution of static resources. So you probably do need the
<mvn:resources />.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Checking my own understanding, given a URL of the form
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://host/contextPath/servletPath/pathInfo">http://host/contextPath/servletPath/pathInfo</a>
assuming the contextPath is /idp and given that we define profile flow
IDs as profile/, the servletPath must be / because of how SWF by
default constructs flow IDs based on pathInfo [1].</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but I thought that in
general in SWF flows are just resolved relative to the dispatcher
servlet path. I think that's what I did in my original testbed. So
the dispatcher servlet doesn't *have* to be /. It certainly doesn't
in regular Spring MVC.<br>
<br>
I infer that Scott just did it that way so that we can have flows
like "/profile/SAML/whatever" be consistent with the old v2 paths,
but still have other non profile flows under /. I see "/c14n/" and
"/authn/" ones for example. I hadn't really looked at all that
until just now. Looks fine to me, if that was in fact the reason
and the goal. Just means Spring MVC has to be involved for
everything under /.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>