On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Kiran Ayyagari <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I see your point.disabling PP is done based on the configuration, so it is not
> Here, we have two options :
> - merge the PP interceptor into the Athn interceptor (this is what you
> - have the PP interceptor being processed after the authn, which is
> The question is more or less about the PP being a part of the authent
> process, or if we want to have a separate module just to have a distinct
> processing for the PP (this could make sense if we want to disable the PP).
> The reason why the PP interceptor is separate atm is that it was not present
> at the origin, and was added after. The Intecreptor chain allows us to have
> such a separation, and it was easy to add featuers this way.
> Now, I'm not sure it makes sense to make a distinction between the PP and
> auth interceptrs at this point, if we consider that PP is a part of the
> server (ie, it can't be disabled).
intrusive. If the PP configuration
is not provided then the AuthenticationInterceptor skips all checks
related to PP.