Once we merge the UM to the registry, do we need the realm concept at all?
That is, all we need is an implementation of the Authenticator interface
isn't it??
I must be missing something.
Sanjiva.
Chathura C. Ekanayake wrote:
Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote:
Hi all,
I have added Javadoc of what I intend to do here [1]
We can add a foreign key constraint to resource_id of um_permissions
table as for improving the data model.
+1 for adding foreign key constraints.
And we can add everything in org.wso2.registry.jdbc.realm.RegistryRealm
to the AuthorizingRealm so that it will be more meaningful and remove
all the incompatibilities from the latter.
AuthorizingRealm is created per user basis. But the task of the
RegistryRealm is to maintain the entire user store in a compatible way
with the registry. So I think RegistryRealm is more related to the
DefaultRealm than to the AuthorizingRealm. As there can be Realm
implementations other than the DefaultRealm, we can't merge the
RegistryRealm and the DefaultRealm. So IMO we can make the RegistryRealm
a wrapper, which can wrap any Realm implementation.
Thanks,
Chathura
Thoughts and comments are welcome.
Thank you,
Dimuthu
[1]http://ww2.wso2.org/~dimuthul/registry-user/
_______________________________________________
Registry-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
_______________________________________________
Registry-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cell: +1 650 265 8311 | +94 77 787 6880
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform."
_______________________________________________
Registry-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
