I agree that it would be good to have a M1 (or whatever it is called) that has
the latest greatest stuff - but does NOT have STS.
Regards,
H
Scott Golightly wrote:
It is my intention that we continue to use the configuration system
(although when I started to incorporate it the feature wasn't complete and I
ran into some problems). I am getting back around to looking at the
configuration system.
I also see the advantage of a release that has the current changes without
the need for a STS. This would give a stable implementation of the
configuration system without having to use token based security.
Scott Golightly
-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Baird [mailto:drew...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:14 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
We need an M1.5 that has all the good stuff Ben and Avantika have added
before we move on to Claim/Metro et al
My two cents.
Drew
________________________________
From: Ben Dewey <ben.de...@26ny.com>
To: "stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org"
<stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:53:18 PM
Subject: RE: Suggestion: mutual certificates viz 3rd party identity
I'm not sure if I completely understand you guys, but I'm a little bit
concerned that if we freeze M1 as our "Certificate" version we'll be missing
out on all the recent configuration changes and the contributions from
Metro.
Will this technique still allow for these new features to be used?
I know it may be taboo, but would branching the code be an option.
-Ben Dewey
