Team, Among some of the design ideas that were brought up recently on cas-dev to reduce complexity, I think it was Bill who proposed separating PGTs and PTs conceptually from their counterparts so that not only they are made more visible in terms of cas protocol terminology, but also, I think the divorce would allow us to create separate expiration policies for PGTs. Something for which we currently have an outstanding request [1][2]. It seems like this is something we can do easily without breaking changes, not entirely sure there. I have done a cursor code review and it looks like something that we can achieve for 4.1 in the interest of making progress via incremental improvements.
So, I suppose there would need to be: A ProxyGrantingTicket class, a specialized version of TicketGrantingTicket A ProxyTicket class, a specialized version of ServiceTicket Mods to CASImpl and ServiceTickets to return and delegate to the above components CASImpl would then be able to carry an extra expiration policy that would be fitted for PGTs Logically, it makes sense to me that 1-3 would be in one change block and 4 would be in another. It’s also possible that we do just 4 but that just feels a bit too queasy. So before switching gears to work on this I thought I’d share and ask if everyone agrees with this proposal and whether we can move forward. Is this agreeable? Misagh [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jasig-cas-dev/ybQcp5RsYFw <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jasig-cas-dev/ybQcp5RsYFw> [2] https://github.com/Jasig/cas/issues/503 <https://github.com/Jasig/cas/issues/503> -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
