Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-shiro-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-shiro-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F726971F for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26638 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2012 16:35:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-shiro-dev-archive@shiro.apache.org Received: (qmail 26592 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2012 16:35:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@shiro.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@shiro.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@shiro.apache.org Received: (qmail 26576 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jan 2012 16:35:30 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:35:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL,TVD_SUBJ_NUM_OBFU_MINFP X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.216.173] (HELO mail-qy0-f173.google.com) (209.85.216.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:35:23 +0000 Received: by qcse13 with SMTP id e13so2502718qcs.32 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.78.206 with SMTP id m14mr6593391qck.78.1327941301780; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: les.hazlewood@anjinllc.com Received: by 10.229.94.141 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:35:01 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OM8o3Cv8_DTI4XHnT1fRNQDFtJs Message-ID: Subject: Re: OpenId4java - RelyingPartyRealm From: Les Hazlewood To: dev@shiro.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > I was looking into the unfinished openid4java support module. The > RelyingPartyRealm implementation seems a bit funny to me, it extends > AuthorizingRealm but then states in the javadoc of it > doGetAuthorizationInfo "Returns {@code null} always because OpenId > does not support authorization operations". Is this true? I mean, if Attribute Exchange is enabled, is it possible that some of the attributes are group or role names? I don't know the answer to this question, but my assumption is that the answer would determine which Realm implementation we extend. Cheers, Les