[Xdoclet-user] EJB Security Roles with XDoclet question

2004-02-17 Thread Kenneth Aitken
As a newbie to the EJB declaritive security and how to apply it with XDoclet, I cannot find an appropriate tag to emulate the EJB-JAR file tag exclude-list: e.g. ejb-jar exclude-list descriptionMethods that cannot be used in this deployment/description

[Xdoclet-user] EJB Security

2002-10-23 Thread Stephen . Thompson
Hello all, After blundering around in the darkness I am now doing the sensible thing and asking for help. I am trying to implement through XDoclet 1.2 tags security on methods on my beans that allow only certain roles to access them. Could some kind sole explain the correct tags I should use?

Re: [Xdoclet-user] EJB Security

2002-10-23 Thread Konstantin Priblouda
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, After blundering around in the darkness I am now doing the sensible thing and asking for help. I am trying to implement through XDoclet 1.2 tags security on methods on my beans that allow only certain roles to access them. Could some kind sole

RE: [Xdoclet-user] EJB Security

2002-10-23 Thread Stephen . Thompson
] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Xdoclet-user] EJB Security --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, After blundering around in the darkness I am now doing the sensible thing and asking for help. I am trying to implement through XDoclet 1.2 tags security on methods on my beans

RE: [Xdoclet-user] EJB Security

2002-10-23 Thread Konstantin Priblouda
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I thought, but this does not seem to work. The container still allows the method to be executed. Is there something else I have missed? Thanks again. In case you need electric light, you shall swith it on. The same is with security which is disable

RE: [Xdoclet-user] EJB Security

2002-10-23 Thread Stephen . Thompson
Thanks. -Original Message- From: Konstantin Priblouda [mailto:kpriblouda;yahoo.com] Sent: 23 October 2002 16:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Xdoclet-user] EJB Security --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I thought, but this does not seem to work