That sounds great. If authorization may be implemented as a separate plugin that is great! Could you give me some directions for 0.22 and if that is no so burdensome also for 0.20
Thanks On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>wrote: > Then the answer is that it is theoretically possible for you to define your > own ACL source, although it will involve a non-trivial amount of work for > you to do so. The brokers authorisation functionality is provided via a > pluggable interface and so it would 'only' be a case of case of you > implementing this via your own ACL plugin and using that instead. > > This is an area that has never been documented and has undergone change > while we have been reworking the brokers configuration model and internal > structure in recent times, so the precise steps needed differ between the > 0.18, 0.20, and 0.22 (which should hit its hopefully final Release > Candidate today and is expected to be released in the next week or two) > releases, with the latter being arguably the easiest. > > Does this sound like something you would want to proceed with? If so, let > me know which release you would be likely to use and I will try to give you > some additional pointers. > > Robbie > > On 20 May 2013 14:18, Misha Nesterenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > sorry, I am using java broker > > > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Robbie Gemmell < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Are you using the Java or C++ broker? > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > On 20 May 2013 13:42, Misha Nesterenko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all > > > > > > > > I wonder is it possible to use custom acl source? There is a single > > > > database for our users and I do not want security information to be > > > > scattered among several sources, e.g. database and files. > > > > > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > > > > > > >
