This looks like an issue with where the properties are loaded - I am not sure why it works in the RFT case. Can you please file a bug? Logs without SOAP message, but with org.globus.wsrf.impl.security.authorization and security.util packages would be most useful. Meanwhile, can you try adding the parameters needed for Delegation Service to $GLOBUS_LOCATION/etc/globus_wsrf_core/server-config.wsdd within the <globalConfiguration> block and see if it gets picked up? The stack trace seems to indicate that the container configuraiton is being used for parameters. Thanks, Rachana
_____ From: Kakoli Sen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:12 AM To: Rachana Ananthakrishnan Cc: Tom Scavo; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [gt-user] Error while running RFT with VOMS interceptors(Problem with Delegation service) Hi Rachana, Any idea why the problem is coming? Basically, the structure PDPConfig is not having the parameters 'vomsAttrAuthzFile' and 'vomsAttrMapFile', even though it is specified in the wsdd file. Also, this is happenning only for Delegation service, not for RFT. This is confirmed by hard-coding the parameters in the PDP.java file of VOMS interceptor code, which is just a short-cut. Anyone listening from the Delegation Service? Please advice. Attaching the log file again. Regards, Kakoli > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Scavo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:38 PM > To: Kakoli Sen > Cc: Rachana Ananthakrishnan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [gt-user] Error while running RFT with VOMS interceptors. > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Kakoli Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > According to the link below, > > > http://www.globus.org/toolkit/docs/4.0/security/authzframe/securit y_descript > or.html#s-authzframe-secdesc-configAuthz > prefix can be different for different PDP's. (Hmm, I would have swore that the documentation used the word "scope," rather than "prefix," the last time I looked.) Yes, the prefix can be different because the "prefix is used to allow multiple instances of the same PDP/PIP to exist in the same authorization chain," but you don't have multiple instances of the same PDP/PIP so you don't need different prefixes. I don't think that's your problem, however. <rant>The prefix mechanism is error-prone and should be removed if possible.</rant> > In our case, VomsPDP has prefix 'bscope', which has to be prefixed with PDP > configuration parameters like 'vomsAttrAuthzFile' and 'vomsAttrMapFile' in > wsdd file. Yes, this looks good, thanks. > Also, similar thing is working for RFT service. Only in Delegation service, > the PDPConfig does not have the required parameters. I see that. I don't know what to say...everything looks good to me. Maybe there's some assumption of gridmap in the delegation service code. Tom -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.cdac.in/> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
