On 06.03.2013, at 16:22, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to throw in some more ideas :) what about a decorator for > resource providers? This would also solve the use case of easily > adding additional checks to resource providers who don't have their > own access checks without needing to code this into each and every > provider. +1 to the ResourceProviderDecorator - that keeps it where it belongs, doesn't sound like security and is still a simple interface. On 06.03.2013, at 16:45, Mike Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think so. If someone changes a resource it's not important from which > provider the resource is provided. In addition with the methods revert and > commit > on the ResourceResolver we could implement transactionality over more than one > provider (even if I don't think we want to do that). I am not sure if moving resources from one provider to another is a good idea (even if transaction-less)... Cheers, Alex
