Scott,
That exactly backs up my point of view on the topic so thanks the quick
response.
regards,
Bradley
Scott Cantor wrote:
>> The discussion basically is revolving around "does a different binding
>> make an endpoint non-identical, even though it is the same overall type".
>
> No. "Identity" is based on the profile (thus the element's QName), not the
> binding. A set of related profiles might also be equated if they choose to
> overload themselves against the same element name (i.e. SAML 1 and SAML 2
> SSO).
>
> There are two reasons to use indexes: cluster affinity and binding
> differentiation. So one of the use cases is by definition based on the fact
> that bindings don't make endpoints "non-equivalent".
>
>> For example can a SP with two AssertionConsumerService endpoints defined
>> in metadata use the same index for GET and POST bindings or should they
>> be unique? (within that descriptor).
>
> They must be unique. If the element is the same as another, it gets a unique
> index.
>
> -- Scott
>
--
Bradley Beddoes
Intient Pty Ltd
http://www.intient.com
