On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My specific ask for this bug is much much simpler. Most of the token > implementations that we have already know what the container is. I am just > proposing adding a getter for the field and pulling it up into the > SecurityToken interface. I'm also not proposing that we need to use this > anywhere in the shindig code.
Philosophical objection: why should we clutter the Shindig code with interfaces that Shindig doesn't use?
