> -----Original Message----- > From: Fabio Martelli [mailto:fabio.marte...@gmail.com] > Sent: Freitag, 18. Januar 2013 10:25 > To: dev@syncope.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Discussion] New REST Service Interfaces - Entitlements > > > 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).
Ah, OK. That would be a nice example for a future extension.
