[OpenID] java libraries

[Peter Williams]

Wasn't this same argument made against putting SAML2, into the Shib framework?

That is, SAML2 add absolutely nothing that SAML1 doesn't currently provide universities?

I just look at shib as free websso framework code (that MACE is maintaining) much like opensaml(3). The SP C++ code is clean, with no annoying java frameworks.

But, then, I come from  a Computer Science research dept that always did everything multi-protocol, ensuring the code's very architecture could cope with the inevitable feature evolution (and inevitable religious protocol wars). As my boss used to say in the early 1990s, building gateways (and routers) kept me and my department awash in "internet" research funds for 20 years...
________________________________________
From: general-bounces at openid.net [general-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Eric Norman [ejnorman at doit.wisc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:28 PM
To: OpenID General
Subject: Re: [OpenID] java libraries

Perhaps I missed something, but

On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

> If openid2 cannot fit into the shib technical framework, that is
> actually worth a pre-doc research-grade paper reporting analytically
> why not! Reading that would more be far more useful than reading a
> report stating the results of what happaned in a small pilot (show how
> openid does not fit culturally into any shib-cultured organization,
> say.)

What value would be added by fitting OpenID into the
Shibboleth framework?  What would OpenID provide to
the academic community that would be of value to that
community and that the academic community can't get
with Shibboleth?

Eric Norman

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general