Re: [higgins-dev] IdASRegistry as Singleton?

[Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx>]

higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/23/2007 06:37:42 PM:

> Okay, thanks.  Two questions:
> 
> 1. Should we allow the JNDI CP to be configured to always get a 
> certain set of operational attributes or some other change that 
> would better accommodate what you're trying to do?  I'm not sure how
> other CPs may end up nor that getting all attributes plus an 
> operational set every time is the most efficient approach but for 
> the STS scenario, might that be the best?

I am not sure what is best - "operational" attributes are an LDAP concept. 
Would prefer to not have to bind the generic CP consumer code to that. But 
at the same time would like to not do something that is sub-optimal when 
used with LDAP. 

> 2. Outside of the scope of #1, is there some other IdAS change that 
> would help put the construction\configuration of the CP nearer or 
> exactly where it's needed to eliminate the hack-ish work around?

Not really.

> 
> Tom
> 
> >>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 02/23/07 2:54 PM >>>
> The pressing need is this...
> 
> Until recently, the STS framework would process the WS-Security header 
and 
> construct a DigitalSubject which it would pass to the token provider 
which 
> would pull attributes from it for claims.
> Due to the fact that the LDAP/JNDI CP requires the set of claims to be 
> specified when getDigitalSubject is called, the getDigitalSubject call 
has 
> had to be moved to where the claims processing code is (the token 
> provider).
> The IdAS instance was not being passed from where it is contructed and 
> configured (framework), to where it is now needed (providers). In order 
to 
> work around this I've had to do something very hack-ish, which I can 
> remove once I can just get the same instance from anywhere.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/23/2007 11:04:40 AM:
> 
> > This all sounds fine to me, I would just like to understand the 
> > pressing need to make this happen sooner than later especially in 
> > light of the refactoring we're currently engaged in.  Not that there
> > isn't a pressing need nor that I have a problem with an incremental 
> > change, I'd just like to know what it is.
> > 
> > Tom
> > 
> > >>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 02/22/07 11:01 PM >>>
> > ok, yeah -- I was going to ask if you thought it important to move 
> > on this with the current IdAS registry model or if we could wait for
> > the refactoring that is taking place (which may take some time still).
> > 
> > It sounds like you have a pressing need to make this happen sooner 
> > than later, so barring any dissent, let's say this:
> > 
> > We plan to make the constructors of IdASRegistry non-public, and at 
> > the same time add a static getInstance() method which will be used 
> > to access the registry as a singleton.
> > 
> > I'll add the getInstance() method tomorrow (Feb 22).  I'll make the 
> > constructors non-public on Monday (Feb 25).
> > 
> > Note that this does not preclude us from implementing any of the 
> > other items below in the future, but for now we'd like to at least 
> > make this one incremental change.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > >>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/22/07 6:59 PM >>>
> > Can we reach consensus on this quickly and start the clock on the 
> > interface change notice period ASAP?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > 
> > higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/22/2007 08:24:39 PM:
> > 
> > > I agree.  And beyond this, we've been thinking that it should also 
> > > produce ContextFactories as singleton's as well.  In respect to our 
> > > ongoing registry discussions, it would actually hold a map where the
> > > key is an identifier (which represents a factory+factoryConfig), and
> > > the value would be the factory.
> > > 
> > > Also, I wonder if this class should even be called a "registry".  It
> > > feels more like a factory producer to me.
> > > 
> > > Jim
> > > 
> > > >>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/22/07 6:14 PM >>>
> > > Can we make the IdASRegistry a singleton by creating a getInstance 
> > method?
> > > Can anyone think of any reason why we'd want more than one 
> IdASRegistry 
> > > instance?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > higgins-dev mailing list
> > > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > higgins-dev mailing list
> > > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev 
> > _______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev