On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:37:31 -0800, Andy Depue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you're saying is if someone wants to adapt Jackrabbit to their own > authentication scheme, they are going to have to create a JAAS > adapter/implementation?
what you're saying is if someone wants to adapt Jackrabbit to their own authentication scheme, they are going to have to create a yet-another-authentication-api adapter/implementation? i can't see anything wrong in jackrabbit using JAAS APIs why reinvent our own? you will always have to write an adapater if you want to use your own custom authentication scheme. i don't a see a benefit in implementing something like AuthenticationToken as ben suggested compared to LoginModule. cheers stefan > This is doable, no doubt. But Ben's idea has the > advantage of being simple. There is always a tension and balance between > "abstract" and "simple" - but what I've seen over the years is that > developers tend to choose simple over abstract (though not always, of > course). If I was evaluating Jackrabbit and saw the "AuthenticationToken" > interface, the cost in implementing it (learning curve + effort + time) would > be so low that I wouldn't have to give it a second thought. However, if I > saw that Jackrabbit was tied directly to JAAS, I would have to give it a > second thought: "is the implementer on the team familiar with JAAS? What > will his learning curve be, and how much time will it take him to get up to > speed just enough to create this adapter? How much will the added complexity > increase testing time (how many more test cases will be necessary to write)?" > etc... > Just my 2c. :) > > - Andy >
