Il giorno 18/gen/2013, alle ore 09.47, Jan Bernhardt ha scritto: >>> >>> May be a rule or a validity date or something like this. >>> I'll keep the possibility to extend EntitlementTO. >> >> A validity date would not be necessary. It is only important to tell the >> unmarshaller to be LAX with the received document. By this the >> ummarshaller will only unmarshall elements he can map to a given Class >> attribute and ignore the rest. This gives us the possibility to introduce new >> elements handled by new consumers and ignored by old consumers. Thus >> not breaking anything. > > I guess at some point we should start using namespaces for our transfer > objects. This would be needed latest, when we do not just add an element but > start to rename / restructure elements... Since Namespaces are usually a > little harder to handle, I would be happy to avoid using namespaces, until is > really becomes necessary ;-)
May be there was a misunderstanding. I reported the validity date as a sample data that could be added to the entitlement data set. This 2validity date" can be used by the an access management service to validate the entitlement (think about a temporary delegation).
