smartweb-devel

[smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <gco...@gm...>]

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#a13658668
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@us...>]

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#a13664231
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <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.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

Ok, I understood your point, but I hope you agree with me if I state
the difference between the two examples is not on API powerness or
flexibility but on ease of comprehension....

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
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

By the way: if you need to check if there is a user logged in you
should use the User.isGuest() method as User.get() always returns a
not null object.... ;)

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
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <gco...@gm...>]

Thank you so much .. It works! :-)
Today I learned another thing ..
We write a good guide so that nobody can do tomorrow these basic questions.
See you soon..:super:

Roberto Lo Giacco-4 wrote:
> 
> By the way: if you need to check if there is a user logged in you
> should use the User.isGuest() method as User.get() always returns a
> not null object.... ;)
> 
> 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#a13670715
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <gco...@gm...>]

Where can I find an auth guide?


Roberto Lo Giacco-4 wrote:
> 
> By the way: if you need to check if there is a user logged in you
> should use the User.isGuest() method as User.get() always returns a
> not null object.... ;)
> 
> 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#a13669580
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

We are trying to write down a user guide, but we welcome any
contribution as it seems we all are not very capable on documentation
;)

2007/11/9, Pino Contartese <gco...@gm...>:
>
> Where can I find an auth guide?
>
>
> Roberto Lo Giacco-4 wrote:
> >
> > By the way: if you need to check if there is a user logged in you
> > should use the User.isGuest() method as User.get() always returns a
> > not null object.... ;)
> >
> > 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#a13669580
> 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
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Stefano V <st...@gm...>]

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
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

Just a note to the Valid tag statement: you are right, but I supposed
he wanted to check the user inside an Action or something like that as
we strongly suggest not to use java code inside pages :->

Am I right or have you repeated, with another example, my same statement?

2007/11/9, Stefano V <st...@gm...>:
> 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
>
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Stefano V <st...@gm...>]

You are right! i didn't read what you had said...
Sorry :-)

2007/11/9, Roberto Lo Giacco <rlo...@sm...>:
>
> Just a note to the Valid tag statement: you are right, but I supposed
> he wanted to check the user inside an Action or something like that as
> we strongly suggest not to use java code inside pages :->
>
> Am I right or have you repeated, with another example, my same statement?
>
> 2007/11/9, Stefano V <st...@gm...>:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <gco...@gm...>]

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#a13737311
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Gaetano P. <gpe...@sm...>]

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#a13744574
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <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.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

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
>

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Pino C. <gco...@gm...>]

Ok ..now I really understand your worries about it and accept the current
signature ..
Thanks for your explanation ..See soon

Roberto Lo Giacco-4 wrote:
> 
> 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
>>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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#a13747047
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

2007/11/14, Gaetano Perrone <gpe...@sm...>:
> 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...

I think an additional non-static method could be added but I don't see
the need for it: if you want to know if a user is a guest you could
simply

boolean loggedin = (User.get() != User.GUEST);

but in my honest opinion the following is the easyest thing

boolean loggedin = !User.isGuest();

as this form shortens the statement a lot and is a bit less error prone

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Gaetano P. <gpe...@sm...>]

I disagree to your sentence

"the following is the easyest thing boolean loggedin = !User.isGuest();"

becuase it presumes u uses the auth module to know that this static method
works with the current method executing user.
If anyone retrieves a User object instance why he must ask to a static
method if this User instance is Guest and not simply to the object ifself. 
And thermore why i must ask statically something that changes dinamically???
I'm so confused...as new deveoper approching smartweb framework...

User user= ....retrieve a User instance...
boolean logged = user.isGuest();


Roberto Lo Giacco-4 wrote:
> 
> 2007/11/14, Gaetano Perrone <gpe...@sm...>:
>> 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...
> 
> I think an additional non-static method could be added but I don't see
> the need for it: if you want to know if a user is a guest you could
> simply
> 
> boolean loggedin = (User.get() != User.GUEST);
> 
> but in my honest opinion the following is the easyest thing
> 
> boolean loggedin = !User.isGuest();
> 
> as this form shortens the statement a lot and is a bit less error prone
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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#a13746936
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

2007/11/14, Gaetano Perrone <gpe...@sm...>:
>
> I disagree to your sentence
>
> "the following is the easyest thing boolean loggedin = !User.isGuest();"
>
> becuase it presumes u uses the auth module to know that this static method
> works with the current method executing user.
> If anyone retrieves a User object instance why he must ask to a static
> method if this User instance is Guest and not simply to the object ifself.
> And thermore why i must ask statically something that changes dinamically???
> I'm so confused...as new deveoper approching smartweb framework...
>
> User user= ....retrieve a User instance...
> boolean logged = user.isGuest();

I think you are having the same problem many people has with
ThreadLocal concepts. In brief: you are "statically" accessing
something stored into the current thread, which is usually thought as
"dynamc" but we are talking about two different things as objects are
stored into the heap and you are accessing something stored into the
stack.  So "static" and "dynamic" are non-sense while mixing up two
different scopes.

Anyway I understand your worries and I had the same problems in the
first place, but here we are simply copying the same approach used
inside the core Java libraries to make everything easier to
understand.

I suggest to write down documentation instead to refactor as the
problem seems to be on understatement and not on interface fringment
or rigidity.