No sorry, nothing wrong with Codehaus' infratstructure, this is my fault. Since I'm moving rather fast, I already renamed the project. The fixed link to SecurityFilterChain is http://svn.codehaus.org/trails/trunk/tapestry-jsecurity/src/main/java/org/trailsframework/security/services/SecurityFilterChain.java, but in the latest incarnation I made it Tapestry specific. Tapestry has built-in support for pipeline pattern, so after I re-factored JSecurityFilter as Tapestry-specific ( http://svn.codehaus.org/trails/trunk/tapestry-jsecurity/src/main/java/org/trailsframework/security/services/JSecurityConfiguration.java) I was able to eliminate lots of unnecessary code.
I think there's value in what I proposed but I have to let my proof-of-concept implementation settle a bit before I can make more coherent improvement suggestions in the form of new jiras and patches. It should be relatively easy to refactor those classes as suggested, but given that I wouldn't be using them (I obsoleted the whole configuration since it was highly geared towards ini files), it might make sense to just see what it'll all evolve to. Kalle On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Kalle, > > Both of the svn links below give me a 404 Not Found (yes, I corrected the > 'and' at the end of the first link). > > I like the idea of a SecurityFilterChain and as we said before, it'd be > nice > to move away from inheritance for configuration and instead move to a > composition model. > > I'm looking forward to seeing your ideas - dunno if there is something > wrong > with the codehaus http browsing of svn at the moment or not :/ > > - Les > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Kalle Korhonen < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Below is an excerpt of my previous email to the user list on the > motivation > > for refactoring WebConfiguration & IniWebConfiguration. To better support > > configuring JSecurity in all-Java (without ini files that is), I'd like > to > > add super, possibly abstract implementation of WebConfiguration that > > IniWebConfiguration would inherit from (rather than simply extend the > > interface). Also, I'd like to add SecurityFilterChain class to carry > > path-specific filter config information that this base implmentation of > > WebConfiguration would use. The refactoring would roughly follow the > > prototype implementation I made for Trails project ( > > http://www.trailsframework.org) for integration with jsecurity, see > > > > > http://svn.codehaus.org/trails/trunk/trails-jsecurity/src/main/java/org/trailsframework/security/services/SecurityConfigurationImpl.javaand > > > > > http://svn.codehaus.org/trails/trunk/trails-jsecurity/src/main/java/org/trailsframework/security/services/SecurityFilterChain.java > > . > > I'd need to touch several classes but I'd keep the public interfaces the > > same if at all possible. Does anybody see issue with what I'm proposing, > > and > > if not, should I just add it in one single JIRA and patch (and hopefully > > get > > somebody to look over it)? I could of course make several patches and > > refactor it little by litte, but I'm afraid it'd difficult to see the > goal > > if the changes are broken into several patches. What say you? > > > > Kalle > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Kalle Korhonen < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello jsecurity devs, > > > > > > I'm working on an initial integration of jsecurity with Tapestry5 as a > > > proof of concept. I'm especially keen on your flexible, built-in > support > > for > > > instance-based security. With a considerable amount of hammering, I > > > implemented instance-based security for previous version of Trails > > framework > > > (which I'm a committer of) using Acegi (see for example > > > http://trailsframework.org/Security+module) and now I'm back for more > > :). > > > I've been an Acegi/Spring user for years but in an effort to reduce the > > > clutter and the "weight of history", I'm trying to remove dependencies > to > > > them. Also, Acegi committers are very reluctant to change the existing > > > implementation even when it would make perfect sense (e.g. > > > http://jira.springframework.org/browse/SEC-517). As a first cut, I've > > > implemented basic url-based configuration and permission for Tapestry5 > > using > > > JSecurity. However, it wasn't quite as simple as I would have hoped > for. > > > From my perspective, a little bit of refactoring would make your > > framework > > > better suited for many different cases. For instance it'd be so much > > nicer > > > if IniWebConfiguration would use composition for the ini files rather > > rather > > > than inheritance. Right now, I either need to inherit from > > > IniWebConfiguration (my Tapestry integration doesn't use the ini) and > > accept > > > lots of unnecessary operations or copy and paste several operations. > > > Similarly, it'd be much nicer if you custom types such as > > > SecurityFilterChain rather List<Filter> so it's extensible and can > carry > > > more information (such as path-specific filter config). Finally, > there's > > a > > > few places where you are doing new Object() & setObject() within the > same > > > operation, again making it more difficult to extend the framework and > > > specifically for applying dependency injection. I'm not suggesting any > > > changes specifically for Tapestry integration. > > > > > >
