You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/20 12:28:21 UTC
Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
problem with understanding how these work is the names are
misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While some
aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level security,
this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance for exposing an
EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name somehow obscures the
fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every exported EJB.
CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this bean....and
it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might make it a little
clearer what's being configured.
CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature of this.
Rick
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I like descriptive names... and less acronyms. For all I knew these
were CascadingStyleSheetBean and TheServerSideBean...
--jason
On Jul 20, 2006, at 3:28 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving
> CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that
> part of the problem with understanding how these work is the names
> are misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While
> some aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level
> security, this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance
> for exposing an EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name
> somehow obscures the fact that there is a TSSBean instance for
> every exported EJB. CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be
> better names.
>
> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this
> bean....and it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might
> make it a little clearer what's being configured.
>
> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature
> of this.
>
> Rick
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1 to more descriptive names
-dain
On Jul 22, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> +1 (the more descriptive it is the better).
>
> Jacek
>
> On 7/20/06, Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
>> CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
>> problem with understanding how these work is the names are
>> misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
>>
>> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While some
>> aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level
>> security,
>> this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance for
>> exposing an
>> EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name somehow
>> obscures the
>> fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every exported EJB.
>> CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
>>
>> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
>> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this
>> bean....and
>> it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might make it a little
>> clearer what's being configured.
>>
>> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
>> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
>> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature
>> of this.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
+1 (the more descriptive it is the better).
Jacek
On 7/20/06, Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
> CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
> problem with understanding how these work is the names are
> misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
>
> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While some
> aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level security,
> this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance for exposing an
> EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name somehow obscures the
> fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every exported EJB.
> CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
>
> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this bean....and
> it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might make it a little
> clearer what's being configured.
>
> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature of this.
>
> Rick
>
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 31, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the javadoc, Alan :)
>>
>> Hey Rick, if you could submit a small "javadoc" patch with this
>> info in it, that be great.
>
> These are my sins. I shall document them.
Now that's class.
-David
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Rick McGuire wrote:
>>> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
>>> CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
>>> problem with understanding how these work is the names are
>>> misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
>>> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While
>>> some aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level
>>> security, this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance
>>> for exposing an EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name
>>> somehow obscures the fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every
>>> exported EJB. CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
>>>
>>> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
>>> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this
>>> bean....and it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might
>>> make it a little clearer what's being configured.
>>>
>>> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
>>> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
>>> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature of
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>
>> For the curious, the acronyms come from the CORBA Security spec
>> CSIv2. This spec outlines how the client side code, CSS, sets up the
>> security context with the server side code, TSS; the security context
>> includes the transport level security, as you had mentioned as well
>> as the shared security context creation and what security information
>> gets generated inside the IOR for the objects. The sole purpose of
>> these two beans is to set up these security contexts as specified
>> under CSIv2, IIRC.
>>
>> With that said, I don't think that we should obfuscate their CSIv2
>> roots but, I am not married to those particular names. Just my
>> personal preference that you must take with a grain of salt.
>
> Thanks for the javadoc, Alan :)
>
> Hey Rick, if you could submit a small "javadoc" patch with this info
> in it, that be great.
These are my sins. I shall document them.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Rick McGuire wrote:
>> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving
>> CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that
>> part of the problem with understanding how these work is the names
>> are misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
>> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While
>> some aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level
>> security, this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance
>> for exposing an EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean
>> name somehow obscures the fact that there is a TSSBean instance
>> for every exported EJB. CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be
>> better names.
>>
>> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
>> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this
>> bean....and it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might
>> make it a little clearer what's being configured.
>>
>> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
>> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
>> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature
>> of this.
>>
>> Rick
>
> For the curious, the acronyms come from the CORBA Security spec
> CSIv2. This spec outlines how the client side code, CSS, sets up
> the security context with the server side code, TSS; the security
> context includes the transport level security, as you had mentioned
> as well as the shared security context creation and what security
> information gets generated inside the IOR for the objects. The
> sole purpose of these two beans is to set up these security
> contexts as specified under CSIv2, IIRC.
>
> With that said, I don't think that we should obfuscate their CSIv2
> roots but, I am not married to those particular names. Just my
> personal preference that you must take with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the javadoc, Alan :)
Hey Rick, if you could submit a small "javadoc" patch with this info
in it, that be great.
-David
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Rick McGuire wrote:
> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
> CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
> problem with understanding how these work is the names are
> misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While some
> aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level
> security, this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance for
> exposing an EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name
> somehow obscures the fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every
> exported EJB. CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
>
> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this bean....and
> it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might make it a little
> clearer what's being configured.
>
> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature of
> this.
>
> Rick
For the curious, the acronyms come from the CORBA Security spec CSIv2.
This spec outlines how the client side code, CSS, sets up the security
context with the server side code, TSS; the security context includes
the transport level security, as you had mentioned as well as the shared
security context creation and what security information gets generated
inside the IOR for the objects. The sole purpose of these two beans is
to set up these security contexts as specified under CSIv2, IIRC.
With that said, I don't think that we should obfuscate their CSIv2 roots
but, I am not married to those particular names. Just my personal
preference that you must take with a grain of salt.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Should CorbaBean, CSSBean, and TSSBean be renamed?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Sounds fine to me.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 7/20/06, Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
> CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
> problem with understanding how these work is the names are
> misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
>
> TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While some
> aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level security,
> this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance for exposing an
> EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name somehow obscures the
> fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every exported EJB.
> CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
>
> CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
> problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this bean....and
> it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might make it a little
> clearer what's being configured.
>
> CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
> configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
> CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature of this.
>
> Rick
>