Hello Brandon, This might be interesting to me, but then I'm a newbie so I'm not sure whether I should be interested.
As an alternative to posting sources here, you could create a project on SourceForge.net. It would relieve this list of the specific traffic. One aspect of documentation that I find particularly lacking is an "appropriateness" section. I expect it to be missing in commercial documentation (because no one wants to lose a sale). I have been searching open source for the last few months. I really have to dig into each project to understand whether it is appropriate. Could you provide: 1) indications for use 2) contra-indications against use 3) known complementary technologies (those it depends upon, those that depend on it, those with a synergistic relationship) 4) known competative technologies (ones where I have to choose the one feature set or another) 5) a comparative feature list (including versions of competitors). Ok, it sounds like I want a month of the marketing department. A line or two would suffice. Indeed, "unknown" would help - it would at least tell me that I'm on my own. Phase Web and Multimedia wrote: > Greetings, > > I wanted to offer some code if anyone is interested. I have seen many > discuss security on archives and wanted to offer an alternative to container > managed security. > > I spent some time weighing out whether to use container managed security or > not and came to the conclusion that I would use a filter for security. There > were several inflexibilities in the spec for container managed security. I > wrote a security filter that functions very similar to container managed > security. It has an xml config file that is used to protect urls. There are > a few differences in the config and how you define protected areas and where > you are directed. > > Basically there are three areas of greater flexibility. > > 1) you can define several security-constraint groups with different login > pages. > 2) you can login easily without having to hit a secure page first > 3) you can set up an app specific security realm. (This can also be > considered a limitation if you are maintaining cross context security, but > you could easily tie into a larger security system if this is needed) > > Anyways, it is not the "standard" but it functions well and gives greater > freedom. I found container managed security to be a greater "hack" job when > I wanted to accomplish my goals. If anybody is interested I can post it for > review. It is certainly not mature and the code is fit for my current > situation with an eye to greater flexibility. I think that it could provide > a good starting point for a cross-container simple alternate solution to the > current container managed security. > > P.S. I have to improve the documentation :-) > > Thanks for your time, > Brandon Goodin > Phase Web and Multimedia > P (406) 862-2245 > F (406) 862-0354 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.phase.ws > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- Neil Pitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.514.863.5465 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
