Christian Müller ha scritto:
Apologies for the late reply on this topic :-(
> The approach with the generic "security" mapping in web.xml is ok for me. I
> only want to get rid of this patch file.
A generic security setup + url mapping in the context files works just
fine for me as well.
>
Christian Müller wrote:
> The approach with the generic "security" mapping in web.xml is ok for me. I
> only want to get rid of this patch file.
>
> If we use the geoxacml component for geoserver itself (this is the
> intension), then, I think, it must be a core component.
>
> I urgently nee
The approach with the generic "security" mapping in web.xml is ok for me. I
only want to get rid of this patch file.
If we use the geoxacml component for geoserver itself (this is the
intension), then, I think, it must be a core component.
I urgently need the geoxamcl sub folder in the geose
Hi Christian,
What are your plans for moving your module to an extension or core? It
would be nice if this was done before we start patching web.xml to
handle the request mapping. That said, I understand that that is a big
hurdle for such a small patch... so it is not a -1, just a comment/quest
