portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Sean Taylor <da...@bluesunrise.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-jetspeed/src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/portlets PortletWrapper.java
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:10:04 GMT

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 08:10  AM, Santiago Gala wrote:

> taylor@apache.org wrote:
>> taylor      2002/09/17 08:44:00
>>   Modified:    src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/portlets
>>                         PortletWrapper.java
>>   Log:
>>   Added method to get around cast firewall.
>>   Plan to convert this code to properly use Java Proxies.
>>     Revision  Changes    Path
>>   1.13      +7 -2       
>> jakarta-jetspeed/src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/ 
>> portlets/PortletWrapper.java
>>     Index: PortletWrapper.java
>>   ===================================================================
>>   RCS file:  
>> /home/cvs/jakarta-jetspeed/src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/ 
>> security/portlets/PortletWrapper.java,v
>>   retrieving revision 1.12
>>   retrieving revision 1.13
>>   diff -u -r1.12 -r1.13
>>   --- PortletWrapper.java	3 Sep 2002 15:02:13 -0000	1.12
>>   +++ PortletWrapper.java	17 Sep 2002 15:44:00 -0000	1.13
>>   @@ -439,5 +439,10 @@
>>        public boolean providesCustomization()
>>        {
>>            return wrappedPortlet.providesCustomization();
>>   -    }         +    }   +
>>   +    public Portlet getPortlet()
>>   +    {
>>   +        return wrappedPortlet;
>>   +    }         }
> I was reviewing the differences between the security code I have  
> hanging for Jetspeed 1.3b3 and the current one, and I found this  
> commit. It completely defeats the facade purpose, which is  
> authorization.
> If it is really needed, we could as well completely remove these  
> classes from the system, or at least move them under a different  
> package "security" is a misnomer.
That sounds like an over-reaction.
Please don't remove the security wrappers. That would break countless  
I hope you are speaking out of frustration.
Rename the package if it makes you happy, I don't care.

> I introduced these classes with two purposes:
> * make clear where the authorization code would be in the system and  
> ensure that no code out of the core system could fake authorization.
> * even more important, have opaque facades for the third party  
> portlets. This helps cleaning contracts between portlets and the  
> container. It "enforces the Portlet API". If a method is discovered to  
> be missing from the scheme, we can add it (both in the base interface  
> and here). So, the wrappers would act as "barriers" against API  
> pollution.

They are not a barrier. You can change the security classes just as  
easily as the API.
As for the Jetspeed Portlet API, do we even want to bother discussing  
it at this point?

> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=jetspeed- 
> dev@jakarta.apache.org&msgId=99099
> was one of the last messages before I stopped tracking HEAD. There I  
> expressed my concerns about using transparent proxies, since they  
> defeated the authorization feature. I would rather remove the  
> Interceptor than having it opened, since it gives a faux feeling of  
> security.
You can't just remove the security feature from Jetspeed.
Paul and I worked very hard on putting in declarative security into  
Jetspeed, and decoupling Jetspeed security from Turbine.  Programmers  
have complete access to the security API, the full source code. In  
short they can do whatever they please. Once Jetspeed has a clean  
separation between container and portal engine, these issues will  
become more important.

> Since the method is called with such a common name, I'm not able to  
> find where it is being used. Could anybody clarify?

In reviewing the commits, I can't find the cast problem I was having.
It must have been in some client code.
I know it was very important, or I wouldn't have committed it.

My vote is remove the method, and I will have to leave it in for my  
It will make extra work for me, but Im used to that when working with  
I don't have to worry about third party portlet programmers breaking  
into security in my applications.

David Sean Taylor
Bluesunrise Software
+01 707 773-4646

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

View raw message