I've been looking at the portal permissions and how they are used and
think a few things can be simplified and speeded up. If there are no
objections to this general direction I will prepare an initial patch.
1. FolderPermission duplicates the parseActions method from
PortalResourcePermission, and in fact calls it's copy again. I think
this can be eliminated.
2. PortalResourcePermission.parseActions seems to have some rather
odd code:
if (token.equals(JetspeedActions.VIEW))
mask |= JetspeedActions.MASK_VIEW;
else if (token.equals(JetspeedActions.VIEW) ||
token.equals(JetspeedActions.RESTORE))
mask |= JetspeedActions.MASK_VIEW;
I think this can be simplified.
3. I may not have found all the constructor uses, but I think that
subject should be removed from all the portal permissions. I haven't
found any uses of the constructor including a non-null subject
(although I might have missed some). In addition to the resulting
simplification, I believe the subject has no place in the
permissions. The JACC defined permissions for web and ejb do not
include a subject. JACC does allow for unchecked permissions, which
are difficult to imagine if the permissions involved may include a
subject. I think a generally more satisfactory approach is to rely
on the policy implementation to determine the subject itself.
4. Currently each construction of a portal permission involves
string parsing to decipher an actions string. It looks to me as if
this can occur hundreds of times for a medium sized portal page.
Futhermore, this action string appears to be constructed using ad-hoc
string manipulations in AbstractBaseElement.checkPermissions(String
actions). Similarly, the constraints implementation seems to do an
enormous amount of string comparison to match actions. I think that
this can be entirely converted to integer masks with bitwise
operations. I'd propose to do this in steps, starting with the
permissions and working backwards until I hit the contraints
implementation, then converting it.
5. Some of the constants are duplicated between SecuredResource and
JetspeedActions.
Comments? Would these be seen as improvements to jetspeed and be
likely to be applied?
Many thanks
david jencks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
