Services by role

[Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za>]

I have this impression of reading somewhere in the docs about 
specifying services on a per-role basis, but now I can't seem to find it. 

Am I mis-remembering? Or have I just missed it?

Re: Services by role

[Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za>]

Ok - in short I think I was probably remembering the File-based 
authorization details.

But yes, the new Hidden() method will do just fine.

I thought I was going crazy when I couldn't find it in the applib 
documentation...

Thanks,
Kevin

On 8 Dec 2011 at 13:31, Dan Haywood wrote:

> I think that if a service is @Hidden, then it won't appear as an icon.
> 
> So one option might  be to code something in the new hidden() method just
> implemented might also work the same way (eg using
>  container.getUser().hasRole("...") ).
> 
> Another possibility is that the Authorization service could veto.  The
> details will vary by impl, but I think the FileAuthorization service will
> consult the "allow" file and veto visibility if no matching role is present?
> 

Re: Services by role

[Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za>]

> I think that if a service is @Hidden, then it won't appear as an icon.
> 
> So one option might  be to code something in the new hidden() method just
> implemented might also work the same way (eg using
>  container.getUser().hasRole("...") ).

Hmm.. this doesn't appear to work as expected. The Service icon is 
present, but with no visible actions.

> Another possibility is that the Authorization service could veto.  The
> details will vary by impl, but I think the FileAuthorization service will
> consult the "allow" file and veto visibility if no matching role is present?

I remember setting up the files for another project. Yes, can be done.

Regards,
Kevin

Re: Services by role

[Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>]

I think that if a service is @Hidden, then it won't appear as an icon.

So one option might  be to code something in the new hidden() method just
implemented might also work the same way (eg using
 container.getUser().hasRole("...") ).

Another possibility is that the Authorization service could veto.  The
details will vary by impl, but I think the FileAuthorization service will
consult the "allow" file and veto visibility if no matching role is present?

Dan



On 8 December 2011 13:27, Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:

> On 8 Dec 2011 at 13:16, Dan Haywood wrote:
>
> > Do you mean that the services/repositories (icons in the UI) available
> are
> > per role, or something else?
>
> Exactly this.
>
> Only those who have "Treasurer" role should see "Invoicing" service,
> for example.
>
>
>

Re: Services by role

[Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za>]

On 8 Dec 2011 at 13:16, Dan Haywood wrote:

> Do you mean that the services/repositories (icons in the UI) available are
> per role, or something else?

Exactly this.

Only those who have "Treasurer" role should see "Invoicing" service, 
for example.

Re: Services by role

[Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>]

Do you mean that the services/repositories (icons in the UI) available are
per role, or something else?

Dan


On 8 December 2011 13:11, Kevin Meyer - KMZ <ke...@kmz.co.za> wrote:

>
> I have this impression of reading somewhere in the docs about
> specifying services on a per-role basis, but now I can't seem to find it.
>
> Am I mis-remembering? Or have I just missed it?
>