4:37 p.m.
I need some advice here. I'm trying to figure out how to model a
ClaimType for our persistent store. I'm thinking that the @Id of the
ClaimType will be the name of the claim itself (phone, street, etc.).
The name will be immutable once created.
Why do it this way?
* Simpler to store. UserModel can just have a Map<String, String> of
claim values
* More importantly, human readable files (json imports, and our
FileBased store) will be able to reference the claim type by name rather
than id. Users crafting an import file will not have to specify an ID
anywhere or generate one. This claim type is going to be referenced in
a few places:
- protocol claim mapping
- user claim value store
That sound ok?
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
4:39 p.m.
Actually I'll take some of that back...@Id won't be a name. I'll
generate an ID so that different realms can have different claim types
of the same name but different characteristics. Protocol claim mappings
and user claim value storage will still reference the claim type by name
and the claim type name will be immutable.
On 2/13/2015 10:37 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
I need some advice here. I'm trying to figure out how to model
a
ClaimType for our persistent store. I'm thinking that the @Id of the
ClaimType will be the name of the claim itself (phone, street, etc.).
The name will be immutable once created.
Why do it this way?
* Simpler to store. UserModel can just have a Map<String, String> of
claim values
* More importantly, human readable files (json imports, and our
FileBased store) will be able to reference the claim type by name rather
than id. Users crafting an import file will not have to specify an ID
anywhere or generate one. This claim type is going to be referenced in
a few places:
- protocol claim mapping
- user claim value store
That sound ok?
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com
8:25 a.m.
+1, I am not seeing any issues with having claim type name unique per
realm and reference claim types by name.
Marek
On 13.2.2015 16:39, Bill Burke wrote:
Actually I'll take some of that back...@Id won't be a name.
I'll
generate an ID so that different realms can have different claim types
of the same name but different characteristics. Protocol claim mappings
and user claim value storage will still reference the claim type by name
and the claim type name will be immutable.
On 2/13/2015 10:37 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
> I need some advice here. I'm trying to figure out how to model a
> ClaimType for our persistent store. I'm thinking that the @Id of the
> ClaimType will be the name of the claim itself (phone, street, etc.).
> The name will be immutable once created.
>
> Why do it this way?
>
> * Simpler to store. UserModel can just have a Map<String, String> of
> claim values
> * More importantly, human readable files (json imports, and our
> FileBased store) will be able to reference the claim type by name rather
> than id. Users crafting an import file will not have to specify an ID
> anywhere or generate one. This claim type is going to be referenced in
> a few places:
> - protocol claim mapping
> - user claim value store
>
> That sound ok?
>
3357
days inactive
3360
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Bill Burke -
Marek Posolda