Hi, I haven't had time to look into this yet. If the authenticationSession is a replacement for Client Session then I think Option 2 ist fine, as the name alignes with the actual binding. Cheers, Thomas Am 25.05.2017 6:24 nachm. schrieb "Marek Posolda" <mposolda(a)redhat.com <mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>>: Hi Thomas and all, In 3.2 we did some refactoring and authenticators are now using authenticationSession instead of ClientSession. I see if we should do something for the ScriptBasedAuthenticator as it;s still using "clientSession" as binding where it puts authentication session. I can see the possibilities: 1) Keep the binding name "clientSession" for backwards compatibility 2) Change the binding name. Probably to "authenticationSession" ? It would need to be documented in the migration guide. My vote is to rather go with 2 as people will likely need to refactor their scripts anyway. Some method signatures are same for authentication session like was for client session, but not all. WDYT? Other idea? Marek