Andreas Prohaska wrote:

Just a thought.

The AfterInvocationProvider class provides a supports(Class) method that
checks whether an implementation supports the current secure object
invocation or not.

Wouldn't make it sense to add another method supportsReturnedObject(Class)
to check if the implementation actually supports the returned object
instance?

This feature could be used by the AfterInvocationProviderManager to apply
only "matching" AfterInvocationProviders. Otherwise you have to include this
check in your decide() methods all the time.


I'm not sure it would add much value. Most of the AfterInvocationProvider implementations will pass the returned Object to an AclManager and decide whether to modify the Object based on the returned ACLs. Alternatively or in addition, they'll decide to process the Object based on the presence of specific configuration attributes. Both of these decisions are based on invocation-specific criteria, as opposed to configuration or class-specific criteria.

I am just reluctant to add a further method to the interface contract when I don't see it delivering much additional value in the majority of use cases. Naturally you are free to write your own AfterInvocationProviderManager that works with your own extended AfterInvocationProvider interface if you wish. Indeed such an AfterInvocationManager could default to including AfterInvocationProvider implementations that don't implement your extended invocation-specific-aware interface.

Best regards
Ben


------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Home: http://acegisecurity.sourceforge.net Acegisecurity-developer mailing list Acegisecurity-developer@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acegisecurity-developer

Reply via email to