Realized I should have replied to this thread.  I've got availability on
Friday for a serious discussion if anyone's is interested/willing.


On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Tillinghast, Andrew P. <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I had actually thought about using the regex to fire explicit exceptions,
> I just hadn't thought of it till I had finished coding it the way i did.
> The only downside I see if we/i'd need to have the exceptions for the "all"
> the LDAP errors and if a deployer had an exception we didn't think of it
> would still require Java coding.
>
> I'm on the jasig-cas chat now and I probably will be the rest of the day.
>
>  -Andrew
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Scott Battaglia wrote:
>
> I'm not super familiar with the ppolicy.  We should see how that would
> work.  Currently we just parse the exception messages and throw new mapped
> exceptions (similar to what Spring does with Oracle error codes -> data
> access exceptions).
>
> Something to work through via chat? (and then come back to the list)
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Marvin Addison <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>> > What I wrote into the proposed LPPE module is a class that accepts
>> Regex /
>> > Error message pairs that are configured via spring, the deployer is
>> able to
>> > specify a regex pattern
>>
>> This strategy is simply inadequate for directories that communicate
>> account state not through error messages but via ppolicy,
>>
>> http://opends.java.net/public/standards/draft-behera-ldap-password-policy.txt
>> .
>>  I think that exceptions are generally the right solution to
>> communicate detailed error conditions to higher levels of the API, but
>> I don't think that necessarily precludes the use of mechanisms like
>> you've described.  I see that mechanism as one particular strategy for
>> selecting the proper exception to throw instead of selecting a
>> message.  That way we can keep the authentication handler "pure" by
>> dealing strictly with success and failure conditions and letting some
>> higher-level component (e.g. webflow) maps exceptions onto messages
>> and performs routing as needed for good UX.  With that view the
>> ppolicy stuff down the road just needs a different exception mapping
>> handler and the higher-level stuff continues to work with an invariant
>> set of exceptions.
>>
>> M
>>
>> --
>> You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as:
>> [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
>> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
>>
>
> --
> You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: 
> [email protected]
>
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
>
>
> --
> You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: 
> [email protected]
>
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
>
>

-- 
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: 
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev

Reply via email to