> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lenz
> Sent: 23 June 2003 13:14
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cvs commit:
jakarta-cactus/documentation/docs/xdocs/writing
> howto_testcase_servlet.xml
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > vmassol     2003/06/22 02:11:03
> >
> >   Modified:    documentation/docs/xdocs/writing
> howto_testcase_servlet.xml
> >   Log:
> >   Added documentation for the new setRemoteUser() simulation method
> >
> >   Revision  Changes    Path
> >   1.5       +4 -0      jakarta-
> cactus/documentation/docs/xdocs/writing/howto_testcase_servlet.xml
> >
> >   Index: howto_testcase_servlet.xml
> >
===================================================================
> >   RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-
> cactus/documentation/docs/xdocs/writing/howto_testcase_servlet.xml,v
> >   retrieving revision 1.4
> >   retrieving revision 1.5
> >   diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
> >   --- howto_testcase_servlet.xml    18 Jan 2003 00:08:34 -0000
1.4
> >   +++ howto_testcase_servlet.xml    22 Jun 2003 09:11:03 -0000
1.5
> >   @@ -112,6 +112,10 @@
> >                  <code>setRemoteHostName()</code>: sets the remote
Host
> name
> >                  that will be returned by
> <code>getRemoteHostName()</code>,
> >                </li>
> >   +            <li>
> >   +              <code>setRemoteUser()</code>: sets the remote user
name
> >   +              that will be returned by
<code>getRemoteUser()</code>.
> >   +            </li>
> >              </ul>
> >
> >            </section>
> 
> I hadn't added this to the docs and changelog yet, because I was still
not
> completely sure about this change. I had committed in a rush without a
lot
> of thought, and as you confirmed later in a private discussion, there
was
> a
> reason that there was no way to simulate a remote user... namely that
> Cactus
> is for in-container testing and that the remote user name should be
set
> via
> container-provided means: authentication.
> 
> I actually agree with this point of view now, and have held off from
using
> the feature I added until now :-)
> 
> Thoughts?

Honestly, I don't know. 

I think it is not bad to provide it. It can help in some situations.
However, we should not recommend it. I view it exactly in the same way
as for the addInitParameter() parameter we have to bypasse the web.xml.

-Vincent

> 
> -chris
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to