Hi,

Is this a required feature for UserManager 1.0 ?

Thank you,
Dimuthu

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 23:35 -0500, Glen Daniels wrote:
> Hi Dimuthu, all:
> 
> > Should I go ahead with the second suggestion?
> 
> +1 from me, but I think we need to make sure that we all agree about the 
> supported use-cases.  For example...
> 
> /               : read(everyone), write(admins)
> /foo/           : no specific ACL
> /foo/bar        : no specific ACL
> 
> In this situation, the admins group will be able to write to foo and bar 
> by default.  Let's say joe is in the admins group.  He can PUT /foo/bar. 
>   If someone removes the write(admins) permission from the root, Joe 
> will no longer be able to do so.
> 
> I think this seems reasonable.  Do others agree?  Is this approach, 
> where permissions are inherited from parents if no specific permission 
> is found, the correct one?
> 
> > If we are going ahead with the second approach I see couple of 
> > implementation methods.
> > 
> > * Change the Authorizer interfaces to accept the hierarchyManager as shown 
> > by Glen.
> > myAuthorizer.isUserAuthorized(resource, action, user, hierarchyManager);
> > 
> > * Create a Authorizer giving the hierarchyManager callback and leave all 
> > method signatures as it is.
> > Authorizer myAuthorizer = null
> > 
> > if(hierarchymanager!=null)
> >     myAuthorizer = new Authorizer(HierarchyManager hierarchymanager);
> > else
> >     myAuthorizer = new Authorizer();
> 
> Right - the question is whether or not a given Authorizer will have one 
> and only one HierarchyManager.  This seems logical to me, but it brings 
> up the issue of how a single UserManager gets shared among several 
> instances of our products - or does that even make sense?  Maybe the 
> only part that gets shared (via an LDAP store, for instance) is the 
> Authenticator and the storage for users and roles.  So then each 
> instance of the Registry would have its own UserManager with its own set 
> of permissions and hierarchy....  If that's the case, +1 for the second 
> implementation method.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Glen


_______________________________________________
Commons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commons-dev

Reply via email to