[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       turbine-user
Subject:    RE: [fulcrum security] Extended Security API
From:       "Adam Ratcliffe" <adam () mrigitech ! com>
Date:       2004-12-16 7:57:27
Message-ID: GIEPIDBNNGGJHJLOKFANIEOADDAA.adam () mrigitech ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Eric

I'll go ahead with the memory version then :)

I haven't used Maven before, can I run the build process from within
Eclipse?

I had another look at the SecurityService interface, does it have a role
other than providing a facade to the various entity managers?  In my client
classes I'm obtaining the SecurityService throught the ServiceManager but I
could just as easily lookup the particular entity manager I'm interested in
directly.

BTW I noticed that BaseSecurityService provides an implementation of
dispose() but doesn't implement the Disposable interface so this lifecycle
method will never be called.

Cheers
Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Pugh [mailto:epugh@upstate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 11:13 p.m.
To: Turbine Users List
Subject: RE: [fulcrum security] Extended Security API


I think that you are exactly on the right track!  While not specifically
required, I do think that having the Memory version as well as what ever
your production provider is key.  I find that when trying to work out
security, being able to write a relatively low cost Memory version gets the
bugs out.  Think of them almost as Mock's!  Especially when you need to test
a security model in conjunction with somethign else.

Secondly, I am happy to add another Model on.  I think it will help flesh
out when we add something versus create a new Model.  I am a bit of a
stickler on unit testing.  I think that it is key to have plenty of unit
tests, especially as you have multiple providers.  The tests provide a
"compatiblility suite" of tests for all the providers.

It's a bit icky to add OrganizationManager to BaseSecurityService.  I'm fine
with it for now, but we actually should be thinking of soemething better..
It seems like too much has been added to BaseSecurityService as helpers,
when really we should use the Avalon model of passing around serviceManager.

Eric



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Ratcliffe [mailto:adam@mrigitech.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:14 AM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: RE: [fulcrum security] Extended Security API
>
>
> Hi Eric
>
> My initial feeling is that the organisation entity fits into another model
> as it introduces another level in the entity hierarchy that isn't
> applicable
> to all applications.
>
> To support organisations I implemented a SecurityService that provides
> access to an OrganisationManager and a DynamicModelManager that handles
> grant/revoke operations on organisations. The ModelManager
> implementation is
> based upon the HibernateDynamicModelManager as I'm using the
> framework with
> hibernate inside of Cocoon.
>
> To provide this model for the in-memory components as well I'll
> need to move
> the organisation-based operations out of my hibernate-specific
> ModelManager
> into an abstract ModelManager, AbstractOrganisationModelManager?, and add
> the OrganisationManager accessor into the BaseSecurityService.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers
> Adam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Pugh [mailto:epugh@upstate.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 2:14 a.m.
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: RE: [fulcrum security] Extended Security API
>
>
> Sure!  Part of the idea of fulcrum security is that you can easily wire up
> your own logic for gluing things together.  Having said that, currently we
> have three "models" supported:
>
> Dynamic which has roles,groups, users, permissions, delegation of
> permissions
> Basic which has just groups and users
> Turbine which has roles, groups, users, permissions and a funky
> global group
>
> I am not sure if we want to extend the "Dynamic" model to also have
> organization, or just add it as an additional entity and definie a new
> model?  The idea is that while there mayb be a couple of common
> models, most
> folks may need to extend it to support what ever funky logic is
> requried...
>
> Eric
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Ratcliffe [mailto:adam@mrigitech.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:57 AM
> > To: turbine-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: [fulcrum security] Extended Security API
> >
> >
> > For a project that I'm working on that will be a hosted solution I
> > needed to
> > extend the security API to introduce an organisation entity.  An
> > organisation has a one-to-many relationship with the group entity.
> >
> > If this code is useful to anybody I can provide these files as a patch.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Adam
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]