cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Wulff <>
Subject RE: Fediz - intended project direction?
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 07:05:34 GMT
If you don't mind I'd like to move this dicussion to the dev list.

Just thinking out loud... the Fediz IDP should become an application but might still require
to deploy the WAR into your favorite servlet container.

When the new feature (FEDIZ-3) is completed we're close for 1.1.0 release. But this still
requires to customize spring configs to integrate the IDP into your company's security infrastructure.
What is missing is a GUI. I'd like to see putting some REST interfaces for the IDP/STS which
is used by either a command line tool and web console. The REST services should cover:
- configure a trusted IDP (certificate, claims transformation, ...)
- configure a relying party (application, ...)
- configure an IDP instance (authentication backend, signer certificate, ...)


From: Sergey Beryozkin []
Sent: 07 May 2013 23:22
Subject: Re: Fediz - intended project direction?

On 07/05/13 22:21, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
> On 07/05/13 16:25, snowch wrote:
>> Hi Oli,
>> The question is whether Fediz is aimed at being a "framework" or an
>> "application".
>> For example, I would classify the WSO2 Identity Server and OpenSSO as
>> applications. If you just want to deploy a WSO2 IS, or OpenSSO, you would
>> rarely checkout the source code and start hacking around.
>> However, Fediz feels more like a framework that you would build your own
>> application on top of. You start by checking out the source code for
>> Fediz, then customize the configuration (and login pages, etc),
>> followed by
>> building your own war with your own configuration.
>> Would you see Fediz moving more towards being an application, or more
>> as a
>> framework?
> IMHO the former is a specific 'application' of the former and I honestly
> hope that in time we will see a dedicated generic application(s) built
> around Fediz plugin.

The 2nd 'former' was meant to read the 'latter' :-)

> Cheers, Sergey
>> Does my question make sense now?
>> Many thanks,
>> Chris
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at

Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders

View raw message