Then how about two different names, e.g. s:hasPermission with only two parameters and s:hasPermissionFor with three parameters.
I mean, s:hasPermission with null as 3rd parameter is getting old quickly. Plus, I don't think there is enough discussion in the reference documentation about what will happen with the third parameter. It discusses entity permissions, which is a different topic, but not e.g. how the rule engine sees if as a third parameter one passes a name that's bound to an object from a differently named class, or what happens if that object sometimes is from one class, other times from a subclass. It doesn't really say for sure what the rule engine will see, let alone an example. Maybe I have missed something, in which case I apologize. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4027769#4027769 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4027769 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
