Re: Kuiper: allowed window states and portlet modes partially checked.

["David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>]

Sounds great!. Patches would be most welcomed.  See: 
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches for format.

David

David Barral wrote:

>
> Hi.
>
> We have noticed that the current Kuiper container needs an improve on
> this subject.
>
> As it is now, Kuiper only concers about the portal support of modes and
> window states, leaving aside the user permissions, etc.
> Currently, the portletWindow setState/Mode methods don't throw any 
> Mode/State Exception and the ActionResponseImpl doesn't take care of 
> the check either. The methods at PlutoEnvironment interface 
> (isWindowStateAllowed and isPortletModeAllowed) are focused on the 
> portal support and there has to be a per porlet policy as stated in 
> the spec.
>
> Our proposal to fix this:
>
> 1. Extend the PortletWindow interface. setWindowState and setPortletMode
> throws WindowStateException and PortletModeException respectively.Two 
> new methods: isPortletModeAllowed and isWindowStateAllowed. This way, 
> the portal can decide whether the mode/state is allowed or not for the 
> current portlet.
>
> 2. ActionResponseImpl already relies on PortletWindow to set state and
> mode. No changes needed here.
>
> 3. ActionRequestImpl isWindowStateAllowed and isPortletModeAllowed will
> rely on the PortletWindow instead of the PlutoEnvironment (as it is now,
> this are the only ones to use the PlutoEnvironment. The rest already
> delegates on the portlet window).
>
> 4. PlutoEnvironment isPortletModeAllowed and isWindowState allowed could
> be deleted (they seem to be no longer needed). This checks are only
> needed trhough ActionResponse and ActionRequest and that has already
> been solved .
>
> Any questions, ideas, comments, flaws?
>
> This is what we are going to do until a better solution appears. If you
> like it we'll be glad to send patches (just tell us the way you expect
> them).
>
> Regards.
> David.
>