RelyingPartyRegistration should use metadata spec language #8777
Assignees
Labels
Milestone
Comments
jzheaux
added
type: enhancement
jzheaux
added a commit
to jzheaux/spring-security
that referenced
this issue
Jul 3, 2020
Changed conventions to better follow the metadata descriptors that the registration is meant to represent. Closes spring-projectsgh-8777
jzheaux
added a commit
to jzheaux/spring-security
that referenced
this issue
Jul 3, 2020
Now that the credentials are split, it's a bit cleaner to keep all the details with RelyingPartyRegistration instead of trying to split them out into different contructor parameters Issue spring-projectsgh-8777
jzheaux
added a commit
to jzheaux/spring-security
that referenced
this issue
Jul 3, 2020
jzheaux
added a commit
to jzheaux/spring-security
that referenced
this issue
Jul 3, 2020
jzheaux
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
RelyingPartyRegistrationis built as a link between the relying party's metadata and the asserting party's metadata.As such, it would be clearer if the method names aligned with what is found in the SPSSODescriptor and IDPSSODescriptor schema definitions.
For example,
RelyingPartyRegistration.ProviderDetailscontains a method calledgetWebSsoUrl, but this doesn't readily map to anything in the IDPSSODescriptor. It would be clearer to name itgetSingleSignOnServiceLocationsince this information is located in<SingleSignOnService Location='${LOCATION}'/>.Additionally, the same inner class contains a method called
getBinding, but this also doesn't map to anything in the descriptor. Instead, it would be clearer to name itgetSingleSignOnServiceBindingsince this information is located in<SingleSignOnService Binding='${BINDING}'/>.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: