[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-2993?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13049794#comment-13049794
]
Richard S. Hall edited comment on FELIX-2993 at 6/15/11 2:35 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, any security provider will be tied to a framework implementation,
since it is by definition part of the framework (it's one of the framework
layers). So, if we accept this fact, then there are two approaches for
implementing it: 1) include it as part of the framework or 2) implement it as a
separate optional framework extension. Since the great majority of people don't
use security, then (2) sounds like the better [more modular] approach, which is
what we've done and what our book would recommend. ;-)
was (Author: rickhall):
First of all, any security provider will be tied to a framework
implementation, since it is by definition part of the framework (it's one of
the framework layers). So, if we accept this fact, then there are two
approaches for implementing it: 1) include it as part of the framework or 2)
implement it as a separate optional framework extension. Since the great
majority of people don't use security, then (2) sounds like the better [more
modular] approach, which is what we've and what our book would recommend. ;-)
> jnlp & felix.security
> ---------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-2993
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-2993
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Framework Security
> Reporter: Andrei Pozolotin
>
> original thread:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10424.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
