On 10/8/07, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/8/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/8/07, Leo Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/8/07, Jimmy,Jing Lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > So shall we also rename them for clear and precise? :) > > > > > > The tricky thing here is that the UnixPrincipal represents the > > > principal on the target server which provides unix interface. :) > > > (Besides, java doc also claims that they are UnixPrincipals). > > > > > > > What about NTDomainPrincipal, NTSidPrimaryGroupPrincipal and so on? > > Should we move them too? > > Seems RI also includes these classes in the distribution of linux release. > But what puzzles me is that from the java doc, NTDomainPrincipal is > only referenced by NTLoginModule if I have not missed something and > the NTLoginModule itself is not included in the RI distribution on > linux. > However, at least to be compatible with RI, I agree to move > NTDomainPrincipal to common directory as well.
Sorry, may be may first question was too short/unclear and caused misunderstanding. You wrote that "the UnixPrincipal represents the principal on the target server which provides unix interface". So I asked by analogy - is there any server which provides windows interface? If yes then we may consider moving NT* classes. IMO, this is not compatibility issue - the list of classes that RI includes into a distribution for login modules. And I think this is not the case when we should consider RI to make a technical decision. Correct? Thanks, Stepan. <SNIP>
