On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Fabian Christ <[email protected] > wrote:
> 2012/11/28 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> > > > I fully agree. My suggestion is that if somebody decides to have security > > as part of their launcher they should not have to additionally enable it. > > > > Maybe I did not understand your request before: Now I understand to enable > security I have to > > a) add the bundles > b) use the -s option > > And now you would like to remove the -s option? So that enabling security > is just a matter of adding the bundles and it is activated? If people do > not want security they remove the bundles from their launchers. > Yes, that's correct. If in the full launcher you disable org.apache.stanbol.commons.security no authentication weill be needed for anything, however if you also disable org.apache.stanbol.commons.security.fexilwebconsole authentication will be needed for the felix console as this falls back to its' built in authentication method, in this case the password has to be configured over the properties of the webconsole service (as this happens for the stable launcher). > > > The full launcher is there that developers can see if their component > work > > together well with all the others (this includes security). > > > > If the above is true, I would agree with that. I have no problem of > bloating the full launcher with everything we have. The name indicates it > ;) The above is true. Cheers, Reto
