https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #16 from Ben ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #15)
> (In reply to Ben from comment #14)
> > That looks like a pretty elegant solution. How would it interact with
> > third-party realms?
>
> A third party
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #15 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Ben from comment #14)
> That looks like a pretty elegant solution. How would it interact with
> third-party realms?
A third party realm would have to implement the new API
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #14 from Ben ---
That looks like a pretty elegant solution. How would it interact with
third-party realms?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34352|0 |1
is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #12 from Remy Maucherat ---
Created attachment 34352
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34352=edit
isUp idea from comment 9
Using LifecycleState.FAILED is also a possibility but it could have
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #9 from Remy Maucherat ---
It's not magical and at this point the thinking is that we have to change
something and it would be problematic.
Something that could work better is having a "Realm.isUp" method or
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #8 from Ben ---
I'm not asking for a hack fix and I'm not asking for a fix that might break
something down the line. I'm asking for an improvement that will make the
application work better implemented in whatever
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #7 from Remy Maucherat ---
This is not useful, we can understand all you care about is having your issue
fixed, regardless of the collateral damage. Exception propagation is clearly
not the right way to do it,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #6 from Ben ---
I agree with Christopher here. Possibly this is a two-part fix, one to adjust
the LDAPRealm to treat connection failures differently than authentication
failures, and one to allow the LockoutRealm to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #5 from Remy Maucherat ---
So I want it to behave the way it does, mostly, and especially not fail
requests like that.
-1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #3)
> The realm doesn't and shouldn't throw exceptions at all :) Look at the lock
> out realm code.
How should the Realm behave
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
The realm doesn't and shouldn't throw exceptions at all :) Look at the lock out
realm code.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz ---
Perhaps the Realm interface could be adjusted to throw a variety of exceptions:
- AuthenticationException (triggers lock-out)
- CommunicationException (does not trigger
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
17 matches
Mail list logo