On 2016-11-22 11:16 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Kevin Smith <smit...@draconic.ca > <mailto:smit...@draconic.ca>> wrote: > > Looks reasonable, although the fact that layers within secured tree > groups would be secured under WMS but not under other protocols is > unintuitive. > > > Err... the people at the PSC meeting seemed to think otherwise? > Setting up security this way is actually more work than limiting it to > WMS ;-) Sorry, I meant that it's *potentially* unintuitive. It certainly does make sense doing it the proposed way, but a user thinking about it a different way could be confused by it. That's why I only suggested clarifying it rather than changing it. > > I see why it is that way but we should be careful to avoid > anything that leads users to think they have secured something > that they > have not. The UI for managing layer group security should probably > include a clear notice of this behaviour and I think it should be > mentioned anywhere setting security that could apply to layer groups > comes up in the docs. > > > That can be easily done >
Cool, +1 then. -- Kevin Michael Smith <smit...@draconic.ca>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
