Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable
Brought to you by:
rlogiacco
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable
|
From: Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...> - 2007-11-14 12:47:56
|
Hi Pino,
the simple get() method mimics the ThreadLocal.get() method which is
used inside the method you are proposing to rename.
So a get() method exists in the standard Java libraries and we named
it in the same way to reflect the kind of User instance we are
returning: the current user for the current thread.
I'm worried about the possibility a getCurrent() method can confuse
about which kind of "current" we refer: it may refer to the global
user (not existing at all) or the current system user (not obtainable
through the module) or anything else you can imagine. A fully
explainable signature (not sign!) would be getCurrentThreadUser() but
it can be hard to find out for lazy people.
About the kind of data the simple get() method is about it should be
easily understandable by giving an eye to the return type....
I'm still open to discussion, but for now a refactorying is not as
needed as you depict in my opinion.
2007/11/14, Pino Contartese <gco...@gm...>:
>
> Hy.. (:-)
> I prefer to use it User.isGuest() in static way .
> I consider it simpler and more elegant..
> But it's only my opinion...
> Rather it's never enough an eclipse ctrl+space to understand anything . I
> never found a method .get() without any friendly attribute reference as
> Name() or Instance() ..and I propose it for a more elegant sign (not more!)
> :-{
>
>
> Gaetano Perrone wrote:
> >
> > Rather then refactoring the static User.get() method, that anyway is the
> > only one static getter method on User class and an eclipse ctrl+space is
> > more then enough to understand it,
> > I'm doubtful about the static isGuest() method in User class:
> > In my opinion a more elegant solution is a not static method declaration:
> >
> > User user = User.get();
> > boolean loggedin =!user.isGuest();
> > I'm waiting for your opinion...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pino Contartese wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok I received the message...
> >> But don't you think it's better to use User.getCurrent() rather than use
> >> User.get()?
> >> get what?
> >>
> >> For the moment i don't need to use it in a jsp page cause I've to filter
> >> a request for a specific resource.
> >> and so I use it in the java code..
> >> Happy to know your answer..see soon
> >>
> >> svetrini wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree :-)
> >>> This is a wrong way to check if the user is logged in,
> >>> becuse when you are not logged in User.get() return Guest User !
> >>> You have to use the Valid tag in jsp or in other place i suggest you to
> >>> use
> >>> code similar to this:
> >>>
> >>> User user = User.get();
> >>> boolean loggedin = !net.smartlab.web.auth.User.isGuest(user);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2007/11/9, Pino Contartese <gco...@gm...>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok better express the proposal reproposing a real case
> >>>> I have to check that the user is logged in or not and I write:
> >>>> If (net.smartlab.web.auth.User.get ()! = null) (
> >>>> ...
> >>>> It doesn't seem so friendly ..it was better for me to use it with
> >>>> antoher
> >>>> sign like I suggest before
> >>>> net.smartlab.web.auth.User.getCurrent() !=null
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you agree with me ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Roberto Lo Giacco wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Do you mean auth module with the statement form auth?
> >>>> > In case I understood correctly I think this could be a minor change
> >>>> into
> >>>> > the auth module API but I'm not sure what the advantages will be...
> >>>> can
> >>>> > you provide any reason for the change?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Pino Contartese wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Uhmm ...
> >>>> >> Hi Stephen,I start to use the form auth and I have noticed that the
> >>>> >> signature of static method User.get () is a little understandable.
> >>>> It
> >>>> >> would be more understandable User.getCurrent ()?
> >>>> >> I expect a response from everyone on ..
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> View this message in context:
> >>>> http://www.nabble.com/Static-sign-on-auth-module-less-understandable-tf4774615s17546.html#a13667696
> >>>> Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> >>>> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> >>>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> >>>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> smartweb-devel mailing list
> >>>> sma...@li...
> >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/smartweb-devel
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> >>> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> >>> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> >>> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> smartweb-devel mailing list
> >>> sma...@li...
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/smartweb-devel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Static-sign-on-auth-module-less-understandable-tf4774615s17546.html#a13745652
> Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> smartweb-devel mailing list
> sma...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/smartweb-devel
>
|
