[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Another possible errata in metadata...
|
Metadata line 272 says “In any such sequence of like
endpoints based on this type, the default…”. It is a bit
ambiguous what “of like endpoints” means. Are two endpoints
alike if they are of the same binding type (e.g. SOAP)? Or are they alike
because they are assigned to the same service endpoint. This actually
caused some confusion here (maybe it was just me J). What’s the context of “like” in this case.
Consider the case of an Assertion Consumer Service with 3 SOAP binding
endpoints and 4 POST binding endpoints. Is there just a single endpoint of the seven
that can be marked isDefault, or is there a default for SOAP and a default for
POST? I *think* it
means the former, although we had discussions about what if an IDP doesn’t
allow outgoing SOAP connections and the SP had chosen one of the SOAP endpoints
as the default. The default setting isn’t of any use and the first POST
endpoint in the list would be forced to be the default. But having multiple
defaults on a particular service could definitely be confusing as well. I’d like to suggest changing the phrase as follows (dropping
words like “such” and “like”): “In any single metadata grouping of endpoints based on
IndexedEndpointType, the default…”. I think this makes it
clearer that the grouping applies to all endpoints independent of the “binding
type”. Another way to do it would be to add a sentence to define
what “like” specifically meant. But I haven’t been able to
come up with disambiguous terminology to do that. So have I actually assumed the right meaning here? Rob Philpott |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]