Hi Geert,

perfect. I think this would be (at least for me ;) ) a real good feature.

Ciao
    Matthias



Geert Bevin schrieb:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> I was thinking along the same lines, but instead with something  
> generic, like:
>
> <property name="role">
>    <list>
>      <item>Client</item>
>      <item>Admin</item>
>    </list>
> </property>
>
> This would then create a list with those two item added to it.
>
> When used with Java to build the element, this would even be easier:
>
> .addProperty("role", Arrays.asList(new String[] {"Client", "Admin"}));
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Geert
>
> On 22 May 2008, at 12:51, Matthias Barmeier wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Geert,
>>
>> actually I have already implemented the comma separated roles ;).  
>> But I
>> thought I have missed something in the docs as usual.
>>
>> I think it is OK to say that roles should not contain a comma. The
>> easiest solution would be to add a property named roles where a comma
>> separated list of roles can be entered. This should solve 98% of the  
>> needs.
>>
>> I don't like separators too and the cleanest way I think is  
>> something like:
>>
>>        <element id="AuthClient" extends="rife/authenticated/ 
>> memory.xml">
>>            <property name="password_encryption">SHA</property>
>>             <roles>
>>                   <role name="Admin"/>
>>                   <role name="Client"/>
>>             </roles>
>>            <property name="authvar_type">cookie</property>
>>            <property name="template_name">authentication.admin</ 
>> property>
>>            <submission name="credentials">
>>                <param name="login"/>
>>                <param name="password"/>
>>            </submission>
>>
>>            <childtrigger name="authid"/>
>>        </element>
>>
>> But is it really a restriction to disallow role names with commas ?
>>
>> Ciao
>>    Matthias
>>
>>
>> Geert Bevin schrieb:
>>     
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> properties are key-value pairs, so if you set it multiple times, the
>>> last one will replace the earlier one. However, I'm surprised that I
>>> never ran into this multiple role problem before. Now that I think of
>>> it, I always had clearly defined sections of the sites I developed
>>> where when authentication was used, there was always one role that
>>> corresponded. When several roles applied, I always had information to
>>> show to everyone, and I used the user identification facility 
>>> (http://rifers.org/wiki/display/RIFE/User+identification+facility
>>> ).
>>>
>>> Now, you should be able to quite easily support multiple roles for
>>> authentication elements since you already have a custom
>>> CredentialsManager. You could for instance separate different roles
>>> with commas and then adapt your verifyCredentials(Credentials) method
>>> to properly handle the separation of the roles.
>>>
>>> I'd like to support this by default in RIFE though since it seems  
>>> like
>>> a shameful oversight. Have to think about how to best do this in a
>>> backwards compatible way (you never know if someone uses commas in  
>>> his
>>> role names!).
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>>
>>> Geert
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 May 2008, at 11:34, Matthias Barmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> My CredentialsManager works perfect evrything looked good but now  
>>>> I am
>>>> stuck again. I have an Element that can be used from admins and
>>>> users. I
>>>> defined this with:
>>>>
>>>>       <element id="AuthClient" extends="rife/authenticated/
>>>> memory.xml">
>>>>           <property name="password_encryption">SHA</property>
>>>>           <property name="role">Client</property>
>>>>           <property name="role">Admin</property>
>>>>           <property name="authvar_type">cookie</property>
>>>>           <property name="template_name">authentication.admin</
>>>> property>
>>>>           <property
>>>> name
>>>> =
>>>> "credentialsmanagerfactory_class
>>>> ">de.sourcepark.ms2.rife.MS2CredentialsManagerFactory</property>
>>>>           <submission name="credentials">
>>>>               <param name="login"/>
>>>>               <param name="password"/>
>>>>           </submission>
>>>>
>>>>           <childtrigger name="authid"/>
>>>>       </element>
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>           <element id="CustomerChangePw"
>>>>
>>>> implementation="de.sourcepark.ms2.rife.customer.EditCustomerPw"
>>>>                    url="/customerchangepw" inherits="AuthClient">
>>>>               <inbean name="customer" prefix="pre_"
>>>>
>>>> classname="de.sourcepark.ms2.rife.customer.CBCustomerPwEdit"/>
>>>>               <autolink srcexit="CustomerList"/>
>>>>           </element>
>>>>
>>>> Everything works fine when I login with accounts that have the admin
>>>> rolle assigned to. When I try to login as normal user I always get  
>>>> an
>>>> invalid credentials error.
>>>>
>>>> When debugging my CredentialsManager I checked the credentials I get
>>>> as
>>>> parameter in the verifyCredentials method the credentials with
>>>> password
>>>> and username as expected but the role is always set to Admin. When I
>>>> remove the Admin role form the AuthClient element the role is always
>>>> set
>>>> to Client. Shouldn' t the credentials given containing all the roles
>>>> allowed for the element ?
>>>>
>>>> Where is my fault ?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> --
>>> Geert Bevin
>>> Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org
>>> Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com
>>> RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org
>>> Music and words - http://gbevin.com
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
> --
> Geert Bevin
> Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org
> Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com
> RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org
> Music and words - http://gbevin.com
>
>
> >
>   


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"rife-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rife-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to