|
From: Colin S. <col...@ex...> - 2005-04-04 15:24:01
|
This is assuming roles by themselves (as opposed to something like ACLs) are even good enough as a basic concept for a significant portion of the users.. I.e. do you really want to bake in something like the idea of a String-based role? Steven Devijver wrote: >I agree J2EE specific code should be avoided. However, assigning one >or more roles to a state should be doable. How these roles are then >checked is a matter of implementation, J2EE being one option. > > >On Apr 4, 2005 4:47 PM, Colin Sampaleanu <col...@ex...> wrote: > > >>Personally, I find J2EE container security completely useless (weak and >>pretty bad design) compared to something like Acegi Security. I'm not a >>very big fan of the idea of baking in J2EE security related code, >>although certainly it'd be good to structure the lib so that it's easy >>for users to add in either J2EE or Acegi Security related code. >> >>-- >>Colin Sampaleanu >>Interface21 Principal Consultant >>Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" >>http://www.springframework.com >> >> >>Steven Devijver wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi guys, >>> >>>What are you views on the topics below? >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>Steven >>> >>>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>From: Steven Devijver <ste...@gm...> >>>Date: Mar 29, 2005 9:52 AM >>>Subject: webflow & security >>>To: spr...@li... >>> >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>It would be nice if webflow would support J2EE roles on a state level. >>>This way one could set a read-only role on all states except a save or >>>delete state which would have a management role. >>> >>>Next to that, ideally, it should be possible for the view technology >>>to determine which buttons or anchors should or should not be rendered >>>by checking the role of the current user with the role of the state >>>linked to a given button or anchor. >>> >>>Steven >>> >>>-- >>>"If you want to be a different fish, you gotta jump out of the school." >>>-- Captain Beefheart >>> >>> |