Search Results

Search found 676 results on 28 pages for 'mappings'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 3/28 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Using Mapping Models to migrate between Core Data Object Models

    - by westsider
    I have a fairly simply scheme. Essentially, Run <-- Data (where a Run holds a data, e.g., Temperature, sampled from some sort of sensor). Now, it seems that sensors can have more than one measurement (e.g., Temperature and Humidity). So, a single Run could have multiple data samples. Hence, Run <-- Sample and Sample <-- Data. (And for simplicity I am leaving Run <-- Data in place, for now.) If I create a new mapping model, then things generally work - except that no new Samples are created, no relationships are established between Runs and Samples nor between Samples and Datas. I am trying to get mapping model to migrate my model but even the slightest change to the generated mapping model results in Cocoa error 134110. For example, if I take the "Sample" mapping (which has no Source) and set its Source to 'Run' (so that I can set Sample's inverse relationship 'run' appropriately) then the mapping changes its name to "RunToSample". There are two relationships handled in this mapping: data and run. The data property gets set automatically to FUNCTION($manager, "destinationInstancesForEntityMappingNamed:sourceInstances:" , "DataToData", $source.dataSet) Following this example, I set the run property to FUNCTION($manager, "destinationInstancesForEntityMappingNamed:sourceInstances:" , "RunToRun", $source) Similarly, I set the 'sample' property mapping in RunToRun to FUNCTION($manager, "destinationInstancesForEntityMappingNamed:sourceInstances:" , "RunToSample", $source) and the 'sample' property in DataToData to FUNCTION($manager, "destinationInstancesForEntityMappingNamed:sourceInstances:" , "RunToSample", $source.run) So, what, I wonder, is going wrong? I have tried various permutations, such as leaving the 'inverse' relationships unspecified. But I continue to get the same error (134110) regardless. I imagine that this is a lot easier than it seems and that I am missing some fundamental but minor piece. I have also tried subclassing NSEntityMigrationPolicy and overriding -createDestinationInstancesForSourceInstance: but these efforts have met with much the same results. Thanks in advance for any pointers or (relevant :-) advice.

    Read the article

  • How can I map one to one relationship in Fluent NHibernate. I have tried everything else

    - by RM
    I have this table structure and would like to map it using Fluent Hibernate (subclass if possible). I cannot change the structure because the database has too many records and might cause major applications rework. It would be easier if the Id from Party table was a foreign key in person and organization table, but in the particular scenario the database has person and organization key as a foreign key in party table. Any help would be great. Party table Id PersonId OrganizationId Person table Id FName LName Organization table Id OrgName OrgDescription

    Read the article

  • Hibernate Bi- Directional many to many mapping advice!

    - by Rob
    hi all, i woundered if anyone might be able to help me out. I am trying to work out what to google for (or any other ideas!!) basically i have a bidirectional many to many mapping between a user entity and a club entity (via a join table called userClubs) I now want to include a column in userClubs that represents the role so that when i call user.getClubs() I can also work out what level access they have. Is there a clever way to do this using hibernate or do i need to rethink the database structure? Thank you for any help (or just for reading this far!!) the user.hbm.xml looks a bit like <set name="clubs" table="userClubs" cascade="save-update"> <key column="user_ID"/> <many-to-many column="activity_ID" class="com.ActivityGB.client.domain.Activity"/> </set> the activity.hbm.xml part <set name="members" inverse="true" table="userClubs" cascade="save-update"> <key column="activity_ID"/> <many-to-many column="user_ID" class="com.ActivityGB.client.domain.User"/> </set> The current userClubs table contains the fields id | user_ID | activity_ID I would like to include in there id | user_ID | activity_ID | role and be able to access the role on both sides...

    Read the article

  • validate linqtosql mapping to a model

    - by Coppermill
    I have generated a LinqtoSQL mapping xml file, which I have a valid XSD schema that I check to make sure the XML is correct. Now I want to check that the field type match the Model/Interface for example: checking that the nullable fields are nullable that int are int etc anyone got any ideas if I can do this?

    Read the article

  • Sharepoint 2010 - AAM - SPSite(SPContext.Current.Site.ID) RootWeb.Url is from wrong zone

    - by user2026343
    I have a sharepoint 2010 web application with 2 different zones, default zone with windows login (for search crawl), internet with Claims (FBA) for users to login. I have custom webparts that uses using (SPSite mySite = new SPSite(SPContext.Current.Site.ID)) using (SPWeb web = mySite.RootWeb) { string url = web.Url I use this url to include to emails etc... Problem is: when user connects to FBA (extended zone), and goes to the webpart,string url in my code returns the url of the default zone(windows auth) where user should not be touching. I have different host headers for these zones, any help would be very appreciated. Update: fixed it with using (SPSite newsite =new SPSite(SPContext.Current.Site.ID,SPContext.Current.Site.Zone)) using (SPWeb web = newsite.RootWeb) { //do your implementation here }

    Read the article

  • Refactoring FizzBuzz

    - by MarkPearl
    A few years ago I blogger about FizzBuzz, at the time the post was prompted by Scott Hanselman who had podcasted about how surprized he was that some programmers could not even solve the FizzBuzz problem within a reasonable period of time during a job interview. At the time I thought I would give the problem a go in F# and sure enough the solution was fairly simple – I then also did a basic solution in C# but never posted it. Since then I have learned that being able to solve a problem and how you solve the problem are two totally different things. Today I decided to give the problem a retry and see if I had learnt anything new in the last year or so. Here is how my solution looked after refactoring… Solution 1 – Cheap and Nasty public class FizzBuzzCalculator { public string NumberFormat(int number) { var numDivisibleBy3 = (number % 3) == 0; var numDivisibleBy5 = (number % 5) == 0; if (numDivisibleBy3 && numDivisibleBy5) return String.Format("{0} FizzBuz", number); else if (numDivisibleBy3) return String.Format("{0} Fizz", number); else if (numDivisibleBy5) return String.Format("{0} Buz", number); return number.ToString(); } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var fizzBuzz = new FizzBuzzCalculator(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Console.WriteLine(fizzBuzz.NumberFormat(i)); } } } My first attempt I just looked at solving the problem – it works, and could be an acceptable solution but tonight I thought I would see how far  I could refactor it… The section I decided to focus on was the mass of if..else code in the NumberFormat method. Solution 2 – Replacing If…Else with a Dictionary public class FizzBuzzCalculator { private readonly Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> _mappings; public FizzBuzzCalculator(Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> mappings) { _mappings = mappings; } public string NumberFormat(int number) { var numDivisibleBy3 = (number % 3) == 0; var numDivisibleBy5 = (number % 5) == 0; var mappedKey = new Tuple<bool, bool>(numDivisibleBy3, numDivisibleBy5); return String.Format("{0} {1}", number, _mappings[mappedKey]); } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var mappings = new Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> { { new Tuple<bool, bool>(true, true), "- FizzBuzz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(true, false), "- Fizz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(false, true), "- Buzz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(false, false), ""} }; var fizzBuzz = new FizzBuzzCalculator(mappings); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Console.WriteLine(fizzBuzz.NumberFormat(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); } } In my second attempt I looked at removing the if else in the NumberFormat method. A dictionary proved to be useful for this – I added a constructor to the class and injected the dictionary mapping. One could argue that this is totally overkill, but if I was going to use this code in a large system an approach like this makes it easy to put this data in a configuration file, which would up its OC (Open for extensibility, closed for modification principle). I could of course take the OC principle even further – the check for divisibility by 3 and 5 is tightly coupled to this class. If I wanted to make it 4 instead of 3, I would need to adjust this class. This introduces my third refactoring. Solution 3 – Introducing Delegates and Injecting them into the class public delegate bool FizzBuzzComparison(int number); public class FizzBuzzCalculator { private readonly Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> _mappings; private readonly FizzBuzzComparison _comparison1; private readonly FizzBuzzComparison _comparison2; public FizzBuzzCalculator(Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> mappings, FizzBuzzComparison comparison1, FizzBuzzComparison comparison2) { _mappings = mappings; _comparison1 = comparison1; _comparison2 = comparison2; } public string NumberFormat(int number) { var mappedKey = new Tuple<bool, bool>(_comparison1(number), _comparison2(number)); return String.Format("{0} {1}", number, _mappings[mappedKey]); } } class Program { private static bool DivisibleByNum(int number, int divisor) { return number % divisor == 0; } public static bool Divisibleby3(int number) { return number % 3 == 0; } public static bool Divisibleby5(int number) { return number % 5 == 0; } static void Main(string[] args) { var mappings = new Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> { { new Tuple<bool, bool>(true, true), "- FizzBuzz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(true, false), "- Fizz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(false, true), "- Buzz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(false, false), ""} }; var fizzBuzz = new FizzBuzzCalculator(mappings, Divisibleby3, Divisibleby5); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Console.WriteLine(fizzBuzz.NumberFormat(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); } } I have taken this one step further and introduced delegates that are injected into the FizzBuzz Calculator class, from an OC principle perspective it has probably made it more compliant than the previous Solution 2, but there seems to be a lot of noise. Anonymous Delegates increase the readability level, which is what I have done in Solution 4. Solution 4 – Anon Delegates public delegate bool FizzBuzzComparison(int number); public class FizzBuzzCalculator { private readonly Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> _mappings; private readonly FizzBuzzComparison _comparison1; private readonly FizzBuzzComparison _comparison2; public FizzBuzzCalculator(Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> mappings, FizzBuzzComparison comparison1, FizzBuzzComparison comparison2) { _mappings = mappings; _comparison1 = comparison1; _comparison2 = comparison2; } public string NumberFormat(int number) { var mappedKey = new Tuple<bool, bool>(_comparison1(number), _comparison2(number)); return String.Format("{0} {1}", number, _mappings[mappedKey]); } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var mappings = new Dictionary<Tuple<bool, bool>, string> { { new Tuple<bool, bool>(true, true), "- FizzBuzz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(true, false), "- Fizz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(false, true), "- Buzz"}, { new Tuple<bool, bool>(false, false), ""} }; var fizzBuzz = new FizzBuzzCalculator(mappings, (n) => n % 3 == 0, (n) => n % 5 == 0); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Console.WriteLine(fizzBuzz.NumberFormat(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); } }   Using the anonymous delegates I think the noise level has now been reduced. This is where I am going to end this post, I have gone through 4 iterations of the code from the initial solution using If..Else to delegates and dictionaries. I think each approach would have it’s pro’s and con’s and depending on the intention of where the code would be used would be a large determining factor. If you can think of an alternative way to do FizzBuzz, add a comment!

    Read the article

  • How can I define custom keyboard mappings to resize, move, and manage windows?

    - by fumon
    I just returned to ubuntu (13.04) after a year using OS X exclusively. I love the improvements that have come to ubuntu and unity, and I'm glad to be back. There's just one thing, though... Slate is a simple OS X tool that allows users to quickly create powerful keyboard macros and really take advantage of their screen space. I have to say I was spoiled by it. Even on a tiny laptop, my workflow was never interrupted by changing workspaces or leaving the keyboard to adjust a window, because perfect adjustment was a keystroke or two away. For example: bind h:ctrl;alt;cmd resize -10% +0 # this increases the window's left width by 10% bind h:shift;alt nudge -10% +0 # this moves the window left by 10% You make a big config file, and like vim, tmux, and everything else, it just becomes muscle memory. I can't seem to find a way to achieve anything close to this in linux or ubuntu. I've tried to make do with compiz window settings and the built-in stuff Ubuntu offers, but it's not even in the same realm. Although to be fair, this level of tuning isn't something most people care about. Thanks, guys. :) Any feedback would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Why wouldn't the default Control Adapter mappings work on Chrome or Safari?

    - by Deane
    I have confirmed that my Control Adapters are not triggering in Chrome and Safari. I've debugged, and the breakpoints inside the adapters just don't get hit in Chrome/Safari, when they work perfectly find in Firefox/IE. So, for Chrome/Safari, IIS is just ignoring the mapping. My AdapterMappings.browser file looks like this: <browsers> <browser refID="Default"> <controlAdapters> [...adapters here....] </controlAdapters> </browser> </browsers> This should provide mappings for all browsers, correct? I used the Charles proxy to check what user agents were being sent. They are: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.1.249.1064 Safari/532.5 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/531.22.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7 Any idea why this would be? Everything I've read tells me that my browser mappings are correct? And, as I said this works for IE/Firefox, so I know my configuration is technically correct.

    Read the article

  • How do I verify my EF4 Code-Only mappings?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    In NHibernate, there is a method doing something like ThisOrThat.VeryfyMappings() (I don't know the exact definition of it since it was a while ago I last tried NHibernate...) I recall seeing a blog post somewhere where the author showed how to do some similar testing in Entity Framework 4, but now I cant find it. So, how do I test my EF4 Code-Only mappings?

    Read the article

  • Why are my Fluent NHibernate SubClass Mappings generating redundant columns?

    - by Brook
    I'm using Fluent NHibernate 1.x build 694, built against NH 3.0 I have the following entities public abstract class Card { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual string Description { get; set; } public virtual Product Product { get; set; } public virtual Sprint Sprint { get; set; } } public class Story:Card { public virtual double Points { get; set; } public virtual int Priority { get; set; } public virtual IList<Task> Tasks { get; set; } } And the following mappings public class CardMap:ClassMap<Card> { public CardMap() { Id(c => c.Id) .Index("Card_Id"); Map(c => c.Name) .Length(50) .Not.Nullable(); Map(c => c.Description) .Length(1024) .Not.Nullable(); References(c=>c.Product) .Not.Nullable(); References(c=>c.Sprint) .Nullable(); } } public class StoryMap : SubclassMap<Story> { public StoryMap() { Map(s => s.Points); Map(s => s.Priority); HasMany(s => s.Tasks); } } When I generate my Schema, the tables are created as follows Card --------- Id Name Description Product_id Sprint_id Story ------------ Card_id Points Priority Product_id Sprint_id What I would have expected would have been to see the columns Product_id and Sprint_id ONLY in the Card table, not the Story table. What am I doing wrong or misunderstanding?

    Read the article

  • Welcome files are not loaded! Need help with Railo, mappings and J2EE configuration!

    - by mrt181
    I have installed a J2EE Server (tried it with Glassfish3, Tomcat6 and Resin4) on Win7 64bit and deployed Railo3.1. I have then added a virtual host to the J2EE server, i.e. Resin: <host host-name="railo"> C:/resin/webapps/railo In the Railo Admin i have added this mapping: Virtual Physical / C:/webapps/ When i access http://railo:8080/ my index.cfm welcome file in C:/webapps/ is loaded (index.cfm is definded in Railos web.xml). When i try to access http://railo:8080/test which contains the same index.cfm i get an 500 Servlet Exception java.io.FileNotFoundException: C:\webapps\test (access denied) (on all J2EE Servers i tried so far). http://railo:8080/test/index.cfm works fine. I already tried to add index.cfm to Resins welcome-file-list in app-default.xml to no avail. I want to be able to access deployed apps without this url: http://localhost:8080/app/ Instead i want to use this: http://app:8080/

    Read the article

  • Spring 3 simple extentionless url mappings with annotation-based mapping - impossible?

    - by caerphilly
    Hi, I'm using Spring 3, and trying to set up a simple web-app using annotations to define controller mappings. This seems to be incredibly difficult without peppering all the urls with *.form or *.do Because part of the site needs to be password protected, these urls are all under /secure. There is a <security-constraint> in the web.xml protecting everything under that root. I want to map all the Spring controllers to /secure/app/. Example URLs would be: /secure/app/landingpage /secure/app/edit/customer/{id} each of which I would handle with an appropriate jsp/xml/whatever. So, in web.xml I have this: <servlet> <servlet-name>dispatcher</servlet-name> <servlet-class>org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet</servlet-class> <load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup> </servlet> <servlet-mapping> <servlet-name>dispatcher</servlet-name> <url-pattern>/secure/app/*</url-pattern> </servlet-mapping> And in despatcher-servlet.xml I have this: <context:component-scan base-package="controller" /> In the Controller package I have a controller class: package controller; import org.springframework.stereotype.Controller; import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RequestMapping; import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RequestMethod; import org.springframework.web.servlet.ModelAndView; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest; @Controller @RequestMapping("/secure/app/main") public class HomePageController { public HomePageController() { } @RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET) public ModelAndView getPage(HttpServletRequest request) { ModelAndView mav = new ModelAndView(); mav.setViewName("main"); return mav; } } Under /WEB-INF/jsp I have a "main.jsp", and a suitable view resolver set up to point to this. I had things working when mapping the despatcher using *.form, but can't get anything working using the above code. When Spring starts up it appears to map everything correctly: 13:22:36,762 INFO main annotation.DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping:399 - Mapped URL path [/secure/app/main] onto handler [controller.HomePageController@2a8ab08f] I also noticed this line, which looked suspicious: 13:25:49,578 DEBUG main servlet.DispatcherServlet:443 - No HandlerMappings found in servlet 'dispatcher': using default And at run time any attempt to view /secure/app/main just returns a 404 error in Tomcat, with this log output: 13:25:53,382 DEBUG http-8080-1 servlet.DispatcherServlet:842 - DispatcherServlet with name 'dispatcher' determining Last-Modified value for [/secure/app/main] 13:25:53,383 DEBUG http-8080-1 servlet.DispatcherServlet:850 - No handler found in getLastModified 13:25:53,390 DEBUG http-8080-1 servlet.DispatcherServlet:690 - DispatcherServlet with name 'dispatcher' processing GET request for [/secure/app/main] 13:25:53,393 WARN http-8080-1 servlet.PageNotFound:962 - No mapping found for HTTP request with URI [/secure/app/main] in DispatcherServlet with name 'dispatcher' 13:25:53,393 DEBUG http-8080-1 servlet.DispatcherServlet:677 - Successfully completed request So... Spring maps a URL, and then "forgets" about that mapping a second later? What is going on? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • IIS7 Handler Mapping Migration from Sites Config to Server Config [migrated]

    - by Danomite
    We have a bunch of sites running with about 8 handler mappings in their web.config files. Unfortunately, they were getting copied site to site every time a new one was added. Now the time has come for me to get these out of all the web.config's and get them into the server's Handler Mappings. If I add the mapping to the the server while it still exists in the web.config, IIS throws an error when you browse to the site. I have a few dozen web.config's to edit here with about 10 mappings in each. Is there a way to add these mappings to the server without having to go in an edit each web.config file manually? Otherwise, every site will be down for a few minutes while I go into each file and remove the handlers. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL: Reusable expression for property?

    - by coenvdwel
    Pardon me for being unable to phrase the title more exact. Basically, I have three LINQ objects linked to tables. One is Product, the other is Company and the last is a mapping table Mapping to store what Company sells which products and by which ID this Company refers to this Product. I am now retrieving a list of products as follows: var options = new DataLoadOptions(); options.LoadWith<Product>(p => p.Mappings); context.LoadOptions = options; var products = ( from p in context.Products select new { ProductID = p.ProductID, //BackendProductID = p.BackendProductID, BackendProductID = (p.Mappings.Count == 0) ? "None" : (p.Mappings.Count > 1) ? "Multiple" : p.Mappings.First().BackendProductID, Description = p.Description } ).ToList(); This does a single query retrieving the information I want. But I want to be able to move the logic behind the BackendProductID into the LINQ object so I can use the commented line instead of the annoyingly nested ternary operator statements for neatness and re-usability. So I added the following property to the Product object: public string BackendProductID { get { if (Mappings.Count == 0) return "None"; if (Mappings.Count > 1) return "Multiple"; return Mappings.First().BackendProductID; } } The list is still the same, but it now does a query for every single Product to get it's BackendProductID. The code is neater and re-usable, but the performance now is terrible. What I need is some kind of Expression or Delegate but I couldn't get my head around writing one. It always ended up querying for every single product, still. Any help would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Can't move or access WSS Central Administration site

    - by Jim
    We have several WSS Servers: WSS1 WSS2 WSS3 WSS4 SharePoint thinks that Central Administration is on WSS3 and that it can be access via SSL on port 22641. The problem is that central administration is not there. It was removed using the config wizard. We removed central admin from all servers to clean everything out, and we tried installing Central Admin on WSS1. The alternate access mappings still point to central admin on WSS3. We tried deleting the alternate access mappings, but SharePoint won't let you delete central admin's mapping. Later, we removed central admin from all of our servers and tried creating the Central Admin website on WSS3, where SharePoint already thinks it is. But for some reason SharePoint is creating the alternate access mappings using SSL, and we don't have a certificate for the server. Why is SharePoint creating alternate access mappings routing an https internal URL by default? How can we move central administration to a new server? We are using WSS 3.0.

    Read the article

  • script Disk Management configuration

    - by Joseph
    I have 10 workstations with large monitors that have USB slots and several card readers built in. The card readers cannot be disabled and will map to drive letters when I image the computers. I go into Disk Management and delete the drive mappings and add mappings to a single folder in C:\ with a folder for each slot. I have to do this because of scripts that run that are expecting specific letter drive mappings to network resources. Is there a way to script the deleting and adding of drive mappings instead of having to use the Disk Management GUI manually on each workstation? The workstations are running XP Professional.

    Read the article

  • Enable 8th bit as Meta in zsh without a warning

    - by Bostonvaulter
    In my quest to configure my shell to work exactly how I want it with respect to the alt/meta key I am having some trouble. Recently I added "bindkey -m" to my .zshrc and now whenever I start a zsh shell (ie open a terminal window) I get this error "warning: `bindkey -m' disables multibyte support". Now since I don't care much about multibyte support atm, is there a way I can disable just this warning? Even better would be a way to use 8th-bit meta as well as multibyte. Also note that this happens on a clean zsh install on 4.3.9 and 4.3.10 My reasoning for wanting bindkey -m vim: alt mappings (my own personal commands/mappings) zsh: alt mappings (such as Alt-. to recall the last argument of the previous command) emacs: alt mappings (lots of built-ins) So, is there any way to disable this warning or otherwise accomplish what I'm trying to do?

    Read the article

  • User mapping lost after manual failover

    - by fordan
    I have two Microsoft SQL Server instances set up for mirroring each with a number of databases. There are a number of logins and for each database one or more user/login mappings. When I restore a backup of database I always have to redo the login/user mappings. I understand this because the logins are per database server. So after restoring the databases on the pricipal I redid the login/user mappings. This was not possible for the mirror because the databases were 'restoring'. After a manual failover I could not use the databases because user credentials were missing. This was not unexpected, so I did the login/user mapping again. I did a manual failover again to make the initial pricipal, which was now the mirror, principal again. To my surprise I could not use the databases because the login/user mappings were gone. Is this the expected behaviour?

    Read the article

  • Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

    - by Damien Carru
    This article is a continuation of my previous entry where I explained how OIF/IdP leverages OAM to authenticate users at runtime: OIF/IdP internally forwards the user to OAM and indicates which Authentication Scheme should be used to challenge the user if needed OAM determine if the user should be challenged (user already authenticated, session timed out or not, session authentication level equal or higher than the level of the authentication scheme specified by OIF/IdP…) After identifying the user, OAM internally forwards the user back to OIF/IdP OIF/IdP can resume its operation In this article, I will discuss how OIF/IdP can be configured to map Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes: When processing an Authn Request, where the SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method with which the user should be challenged When sending an Assertion, where OIF/IdP sets the Federation Authentication Method in the Assertion Enjoy the reading! Overview The various Federation protocols support mechanisms allowing the partners to exchange information on: How the user should be challenged, when the SP/RP makes a request How the user was challenged, when the IdP/OP issues an SSO response When a remote SP partner redirects the user to OIF/IdP for Federation SSO, the message might contain data requesting how the user should be challenged by the IdP: this is treated as the Requested Federation Authentication Method. OIF/IdP will need to map that Requested Federation Authentication Method to a local Authentication Scheme, and then invoke OAM for user authentication/challenge with the mapped Authentication Scheme. OAM would authenticate the user if necessary with the scheme specified by OIF/IdP. Similarly, when an IdP issues an SSO response, most of the time it will need to include an identifier representing how the user was challenged: this is treated as the Federation Authentication Method. When OIF/IdP issues an Assertion, it will evaluate the Authentication Scheme with which OAM identified the user: If the Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a Federation Authentication Method, then OIF/IdP will use the result of that mapping in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled If the Authentication Scheme cannot be mapped, then OIF/IdP will set the Federation Authentication Method as the Authentication Scheme name in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled Mappings In OIF/IdP, the mapping between Federation Authentication Methods and Authentication Schemes has the following rules: One Federation Authentication Method can be mapped to several Authentication Schemes In a Federation Authentication Method <-> Authentication Schemes mapping, a single Authentication Scheme is marked as the default scheme that will be used to authenticate a user, if the SP/RP partner requests the user to be authenticated via a specific Federation Authentication Method An Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a single Federation Authentication Method Let’s examine the following example and the various use cases, based on the SAML 2.0 protocol: Mappings defined as: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapped to LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication BasicScheme urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 mapped to X509Scheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication Use cases: SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with X509Scheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method. SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with LDAPScheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method, not the BasicScheme SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with LDAPScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisSessionlessScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with BasisSessionlessScheme as the FederationAuthenticationMethod, since that scheme could not be mapped to any Federation Authentication Method (in this case, the administrator would need to correct that and create a mapping) Configuration Mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. Authentication Schemes As discussed in the previous article, during Federation SSO, OIF/IdP will internally forward the user to OAM for authentication/verification and specify which Authentication Scheme to use. OAM will determine if a user needs to be challenged: If the user is not authenticated yet If the user is authenticated but the session timed out If the user is authenticated, but the authentication scheme level of the original authentication is lower than the level of the authentication scheme requested by OIF/IdP So even though an SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user, if that method is mapped to an Authentication Scheme and that at runtime OAM deems that the user does not need to be challenged with that scheme (because the user is already authenticated, session did not time out, and the session authn level is equal or higher than the one for the specified Authentication Scheme), the flow won’t result in a challenge operation. Protocols SAML 2.0 The SAML 2.0 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 2.0 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocol urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Telephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PersonalTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PreviousSession urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Smartcard urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocolPassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TLSClient urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:XMLDSig urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SoftwarePKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Kerberos urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SecureRemotePassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:NomadTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:AuthenticatedTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SmartcardPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TimeSyncToken Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 2.0 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml20-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 2.0 An example of an AuthnRequest message sent by an SP to an IdP with the SP requesting a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user would be: <samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" Destination="https://idp.com/oamfed/idp/samlv20" ID="id-8bWn-A9o4aoMl3Nhx1DuPOOjawc-" IssueInstant="2014-03-21T20:51:11Z" Version="2.0">  <saml:Issuer ...>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Issuer>  <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="false" Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified"/>  <samlp:RequestedAuthnContext Comparison="minimum">    <saml:AuthnContextClassRef xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">      urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>  </samlp:RequestedAuthnContext></samlp:AuthnRequest> An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                    urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 2.0 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes SAML 1.1 The SAML 1.1 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 1.1 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:HardwareToken urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:X509-PKI urn:ietf:rfc:2246 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:SPKI urn:ietf:rfc:3075 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:XKMS urn:ietf:rfc:1510 urn:ietf:rfc:2945 Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 1.1 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml11-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 1.1 An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Note: SAML 1.1 does not define an AuthnRequest message. An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 1.1 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes OpenID 2.0 The OpenID 2.0 PAPE specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for OpenID 2.0 flows: http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor-physical Out of the box, OIF/IdP does not define any mappings for the OpenID 2.0 Federation Authentication Methods. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. An example of an OpenID 2.0 Request message sent by an SP/RP to an IdP/OP would be: https://idp.com/openid?openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=checkid_setup&openid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.realm=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_request&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.if_available=attr0&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.max_auth_age=0 An example of an Open ID 2.0 SSO Response issued by an IdP/OP would be: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP for the various protocols, to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods.Cheers,Damien Carru

    Read the article

  • Configuring Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

    - by Damien Carru
    In this article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods, based on the concepts introduced in my previous entry. I will show examples for the three protocols supported by OIF: SAML 2.0 SSO SAML 1.1 SSO OpenID 2.0 Enjoy the reading! Configuration As I mentioned in my previous article, mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. WLST Commands The two OIF WLST commands that can be used to define mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes are: addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner Profile, taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner Profile The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner , taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name Note: I will discuss in a subsequent article the other parameters of those commands. In the next sections, I will show examples on how to use those methods: For SAML 2.0, I will configure the SP Partner Profile, that will apply all the mappings to SP Partners referencing this profile, unless they override mapping definition For SAML 1.1, I will configure the SP Partner. For OpenID 2.0, I will configure the SP/RP Partner SAML 2.0 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use BasicScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map BasicSessionScheme  to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password Federation Authentication Method Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> BasicScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to BasicScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via HTTP Basic Authentication defined in the BasicScheme for AcmeSP. Also, as noted earlier, the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping BasicScheme To change the Federation Authentication Method mapping for the BasicScheme to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password instead of urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport for the saml20-sp-partner-profile SAML 2.0 SP Partner Profile (the profile to which my AcmeSP Partner is bound to), I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the AuthnContextClassRef was changed from PasswordProtectedTransport to Password): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of BasicScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme and BasicScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods. As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthnContextClassRef set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To add the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapping, I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to PasswordProtectedTransport): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> SAML 1.1 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 1.1 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods (in the SP Partner Profile). As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To map the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password for this SP Partner only, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme I will now show that by defining a Federation Authentication Mapping at the Partner level, this now ignores all mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile level. For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for this SP Partner back to LDAPScheme, and the Assertion issued by OIF/IdP will not be able to map this LDAPScheme to a Federation Authentication Method anymore, since A Federation Authentication Method mapping is defined at the SP Partner level and thus the mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile are ignored The LDAPScheme is not listed in the mapping at the Partner level I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for this SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to LDAPScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="LDAPScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping LDAPScheme at Partner Level To fix this issue, we will need to add the LDAPScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password mapping for this SP Partner only. I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OpenID 2.0 In the OpenID 2.0 flows, the RP must request use of PAPE, in order for OIF/IdP/OP to include PAPE information. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. The WLST command will take a list of policies, delimited by the ',' character, instead of SAML 2.0 or SAML 1.1 where a single Federation Authentication Method had to be specified. Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP/OP and is integrated with a remote OpenID 2.0 SP/RP partner identified by AcmeRP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods (the second one is a custom for this use case) LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. No Federation Authentication Method is defined OOTB for OpenID 2.0, so if the IdP/OP issue an SSO response with a PAPE Response element, it will specify the scheme name instead of Federation Authentication Methods After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an SSO Response similar to: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=LDAPScheme&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D Mapping LDAPScheme To map the LDAP Scheme to the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method (the policies will be comma separated): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeRP", "http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant,http://openid-policies/password-protected", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to the two policies): https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant+http%3A%2F%2Fopenid-policies%2Fpassword-protected&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will cover how OIF/IdP can be configured so that an SP can request a specific Federation Authentication Method to challenge the user during Federation SSO.Cheers,Damien Carru

    Read the article

  • proper use of volatile keyword

    - by luke
    I think i have a pretty good idea about the volatile keyword in java, but i'm thinking about re-factoring some code and i thought it would be a good idea to use it. i have a class that is basically working as a DB Cache. it holds a bunch of objects that it has read from a database, serves requests for those objects, and then occasionally refreshes the database (based on a timeout). Heres the skeleton public class Cache { private HashMap mappings =....; private long last_update_time; private void loadMappingsFromDB() { //.... } private void checkLoad() { if(System.currentTimeMillis() - last_update_time > TIMEOUT) loadMappingsFromDB(); } public Data get(ID id) { checkLoad(); //.. look it up } } So the concern is that loadMappingsFromDB could be a high latency operation and thats not acceptable, So initially i thought that i could spin up a thread on cache startup and then just have it sleep and then update the cache in the background. But then i would need to synchronize my class (or the map). and then i would just be trading an occasional big pause for making every cache access slower. Then i thought why not use volatile i could define the map reference as volatile private volatile HashMap mappings =....; and then in get (or anywhere else that uses the mappings variable) i would just make a local copy of the reference: public Data get(ID id) { HashMap local = mappings; //.. look it up using local } and then the background thread would just load into a temp table and then swap the references in the class HashMap tmp; //load tmp from DB mappings = tmp;//swap variables forcing write barrier Does this approach make sense? and is it actually thread-safe?

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate + multiple databases

    - by Pablote
    My project needs to handle three databases, that means three session factories. The thing is if i do something like this with fluent nhibernate: .Mappings(m = m.FluentMappings.AddFromAssembly(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())) the factories would pick up all the mappings, even the ones that correspond to another database I've seen that when using automapping you can do something like this, and filter by namespace: .Mappings(m = m.AutoMappings.Add(AutoMap.AssemblyOf().Where(t = t.Namespace == "Storefront.Entities"))) I havent found anything like this for fluent mappings, is it possible?? The only solutions I can think of are: either create separate assemblies for each db mapping classes or explicitly adding each of the entities to the factory configuration. I would prefer to avoid both, if possible. Thanks.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >