To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For help
understanding the request please visit
http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project xml-security has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affe
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For help
understanding the request please visit
http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project xml-security has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affe
Hello,
I am trying to sign the attached SAML document using the improved performance jar and
got the following error. Could you give a clue as to why ?
java.lang.RuntimeException: getNodeSet() called but no input data present
at org.apache.xml.security.signature.XMLSignatureInput.getNod
Hi,
Now that I the patches of c14n has been included I have detected several
places where some improvements can he done:
1.Refactor the org.apache.xml.security.Init: Right now is very slow
in what it does. The use of XpathApi makes it very slow, I can rewrite
it to use DOM, and use internal
On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:58:42 +0200
Erwin van der Koogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've got some SPML that I'd like to send to a client with a digital
> > signature. Looking at the spec it seems like using an enveloping
> > signature would be the easiest thing to do.
> > This would allow me to
I've got some SPML that I'd like to send to a client with a digital
signature. Looking at the spec it seems like using an enveloping
signature would be the easiest thing to do.
This would allow me to send just one xml document, without having to use
another standard like SOAP-SEC.
The ObjectContain
I've got some SPML that I'd like to send to a client with a digital signature.
Looking at the spec it seems like using an enveloping signature would be the
easiest thing to do.
This would allow me to send just one xml document, without having to use another
standard like SOAP-SEC.
The ObjectContain
+1 (non-binding) to throwing exception as per berin/raul AND fixing
the sample as per Sean :)
+1 from me as well. If I read it properly it might break some obscure
applications, but they probably should be thankful for it. Cause I can't
think of serious situations where it would happen and you wo
+1 (non-binding) to throwing exception as per berin/raul AND fixing
the sample as per Sean :)
-- dims
On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:36:22 -0400, Sean Mullan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> > Yup.
> >
> > I've also worked out the problem, but I need some advice from everyone
> >
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Yup.
I've also worked out the problem, but I need some advice from everyone
as to the "right" fix.
The samples create a manifest object that refers to a URI in the rest of
the signature. At the time the manifest is created, the element that
will hold the relevant Id ha
Yup.
I've also worked out the problem, but I need some advice from everyone
as to the "right" fix.
The samples create a manifest object that refers to a URI in the rest of
the signature. At the time the manifest is created, the element that
will hold the relevant Id has not yet been added to
> Dims,
>
> I just tried to apply your new code for Merlin-23 and it's flushed out
> that the mega-sample target is now throwing an exception when it
> creates a non XSLT target (and so is the new 23).
>
> I think this is something to do with the new optimisations, but I'll
> try and track it dow
> Dims,
>
> I just tried to apply your new code for Merlin-23 and it's flushed out
> that the mega-sample target is now throwing an exception when it
> creates a non XSLT target (and so is the new 23).
>
> I think this is something to do with the new optimisations, but I'll
> try and track it dow
13 matches
Mail list logo
