You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Eric Pugh <ep...@opensourceconnections.com> on 2004/10/07 15:57:10 UTC
RoleSet/PermissionSet/GroupSet usage in Security...
Hi all,
I am thinking of removing the mandatory usage of these Set implementations
in Fulcrum Security.. Making the purely a conveninece thing that you could
use or not if you wanted to.
Right now they bascially enforce typesafty over using a Set. However, it
means things like Hibernate under the covers work weird. And you can use
polymorphism easily to deal with a Set of groups versus a Set of roles in
the same manner... And really, with Java 1.5, we can deal with type safty
in collections better (at some point!)
I am thinking this would only apply to Fulcrum Security. The current
Turbine 2.3 security remains the same, and the API in Turbine 2.4 would be
the same..
You could use them as helpers if that was somethign you wanted to, but the
engine inside of fulcrum security, or if you use the components directly,
wouldn't require them..
Opinons?
ERic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: RoleSet/PermissionSet/GroupSet usage in Security...
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
"Eric Pugh" <ep...@opensourceconnections.com> writes:
>Hi all,
>I am thinking of removing the mandatory usage of these Set implementations
>in Fulcrum Security.. Making the purely a conveninece thing that you could
>use or not if you wanted to.
These sets provide both name and id mappings. Yes, they are for
convenience and could be factored out.
>Right now they bascially enforce typesafty over using a Set. However, it
>means things like Hibernate under the covers work weird. And you can use
>polymorphism easily to deal with a Set of groups versus a Set of roles in
>the same manner... And really, with Java 1.5, we can deal with type safty
>in collections better (at some point!)
>I am thinking this would only apply to Fulcrum Security. The current
>Turbine 2.3 security remains the same, and the API in Turbine 2.4 would be
>the same..
>You could use them as helpers if that was somethign you wanted to, but the
>engine inside of fulcrum security, or if you use the components directly,
>wouldn't require them..
Sounds good.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development
"Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re-
fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's
position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied -
is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it
deserves to be on this list of the top five problems."
-- Michelle Levesque, "Fundamental Issues with
Open Source Software Development"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org