Hi Kevin,
It looks like you changed your mind half way through your post... so,
are you happy with my proposed change?
To be clear, I'd prefer "security_file.passwords" rather
"passwords.security_file", because we also support
"security_file.properties" for any component-specific properties (ie
ApiName_ImplName.properties).
Cheers
Dan
On 18/02/2011 11:30, Kevin Meyer wrote:
If I could toss in my 2c -
Could you rather keep the extension the same: i.e.
"passwords.security_file", and "allow.security_file"
or something?
I have had issues with refactoring and being unable to specify an
extension-based wildcard to include these files...
Then again, I could easily include "*.allow" and "*.passwords", I
suppose.
Sure, Dan, you have my +1 to rename these files to include an
extension.
On Fri, February 18, 2011 10:19, Dan Haywood wrote:
Folks,
Currently our simple file security module (authentication and
authorization) uses the file "passwords" to hold user/pwd combos, and
the file "allow" to specify whitelist authorization.
I'm currently working on the archetype, and generating it from
support/prototype using mvn archetype:create-from-project. I've noticed
that the generated archetype-metadata.xml does not include these files,
because it expects all files to have an extension.
I therefore propose that we rename "passwords" to
"security_file.passwords", and "allow" to "security_file.allow". This
should solve my problem, and I also think is an improvement in that it
fits better with our naming of properties files, and shows which module
uses these files.
If there are any objections, let me know here.
