portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weaver, Scott" <Swea...@rippe.com>
Subject RE: OJB based security service, any thoughts?
Date Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:16:59 GMT
Hi Matthew,

> fwiw I can help with any specific OJB questions.
Great!  Always glad to have a go-to guy with as much knowledge as you have concerning OJB
offering to help out.

> I would recommend getting the lastest 0.9.6 release to build upon.
Supposing we do go with 0.9.6, which we will probably do since you suggested it, is there
anything that differs greatly concerning entries in OJB.properties of the repository format
I should know about relative to 0.9.5?

Thanks,
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Baird [mailto:Matthew.Baird@motiva.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:56 AM
To: Jetspeed Developers List
Subject: RE: OJB based security service, any thoughts?

fwiw I can help with any specific OJB questions. I would recommend getting the lastest 0.9.6
release to build upon.
 
cheers,
Matthew
-----Original Message----- 
From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:Sweaver@rippe.com] 
Sent: Wed 10/2/2002 7:46 AM 
To: 'Jetspeed Developers List' 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: OJB based security service, any thoughts?
David,

I just started looking at the security stuff in depth.  Right now I'm just starting to look
PortalAuthentication.  The thing I immediately noticed is how generic the code in TurbineAuthentication. 
In fact, I think the logic could be moved to a BaseAuthentication class were others could
benefit from extending it into custom classes.  I have basically copied the whole thing verbatim
into my OJBAuthentication class.

Any thoughts?

Scott 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Sean Taylor [mailto:david.sean.taylor@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:17 AM
> To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> Subject: RE: OJB based security service, any thoughts?
>
>
>
> > Do you mean breaking user-apps based on Jetspeed or the
> > actual base Jetspeed itself?  I thought the abstraction
> > through the new security implementation prevented just this
> > type of situation.
> >
> > Could we offer the option of an OJB-based impl. along side
> > the Torque one?  Maybe, get people used to the OJB stuff
> > early-on by choice and not by force.  We could also add an
> > ant task to build a .war with OJB support and leave the
> > default war option to Torque.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood.
> +1 on an optional OJB object model.
> That would give people a chance to compare OJB with Torque.
>
>
> BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/
>
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
> stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do
> not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
> BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
> signify your consent to this.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:jetspeed-dev-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message