<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/24/15 12:41 PM, Cantor, Scott
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52B62ED4-94EA-4EBD-9474-178AD008D284@osu.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 9/24/15, 10:34 AM, "dev on behalf of Misagh Moayyed" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dev-bounces@shibboleth.netonbehalfofmmoayyed@unicon.net"><dev-bounces@shibboleth.net on behalf of mmoayyed@unicon.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Given the current IdP config architecture, I'd be inclined to
simply include a template XML config file that is totally empty, into the
context which is then decorated with all the right spring namespaces.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
We mostly do but the MVC and webflow files are being loaded by the IdP servlet context and not globally, which I forgot, so we're missing an include.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, that was my conclusion as well. We should have e.g.
mvc-beans.xml include a file from user-space config, like
global-system.xml include global.xml Or else just modify the
DispatcherServlet in web.xml to include a specific user-space file,
initially empty.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52B62ED4-94EA-4EBD-9474-178AD008D284@osu.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I'm not too keen on relying on bean overrides, though, just feels brittle. Some of that's unavoidable because MVC config isn't that clean, but for most of our components we use other techniques to handle it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:52B62ED4-94EA-4EBD-9474-178AD008D284@osu.edu"
type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not totally sure what is meant here by "bean overrides", or what
the use case(s) are. I agree with Scott that it sounds brittle.<br>
<br>
But underlying that: someone may in theory need an MVC config which
is "clean", i.e. not polluted with our stuff, and/or they can't add
their stuff without breaking ours. That was the reason I suggested
some cases may want to use a separate distinct DispatcherServlet -
it gets its own config and ApplicationContext. I don't necessarily
think we should wire an empty one apriori. But if a deployer or
extension wants to modify web.xml, they can add their own, so just
noting it for the record. (Because of the sound dropping out, I
still don't think I ever heard on the call what Misagh's concerns
with this were. Other than needing be mindful of the
ApplicationContext hierarchy, I can't off-hand think of any problems
with this. But I'd welcome discussing any potential problems. ) <br>
</body>
</html>