On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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? We *would* use it if it existed. Right now we have to pass container separately for many operations where the security token is already passed. This would eliminate that requirement. I actually agree with Cassie's next point more though. getParameter seems like a much cleaner extensibility mechanism.
