Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>>> The second step ( and the harder step) is to make it manageable. This
>>>> is only the case for JDBCVirtualUserTable at the moment. I want to add
>>>> JMX and RemoteManager support for it to create mappings and delete
them.
>> Yes, BUT ... this should have some more careful designing. And we do not
>> need to rush it. For example, UsersRepositoryVUT should be a higher
>> priority (IMO), and it already has an administrative interface.
> Priorities are imho something we hardly can discuss: Norman is
> working on this: he will follow his own priorities.
Of course we can discuss them. Norman, in point of fact, asked for input.
> About "this should have some more careful designing": my idea is that
> this project need more work, and less designing.
> we'll finish up with long design threads with no conclusions that
> are often seen in james archives: 3 years later no one is aware
> of that discussions and probably the discussions are outdated.
There are a number of reasons why things don't get done. Sometimes because
no one has time, sometimes because there are higher priorities, sometimes
because people haven't found a solution that they like.
Do you have a proposal for what adding a mapping to a VUT should look like?
Are all VUTs required to implement it? What should happen if a VUT isn't
persistent? Are all VUTs defined as [src, map]-pairs? For JDBC, we use
[localpart, domain, map], but are there alternative representations? Are
there VUTs for which the mapping is computable, but definition is not simply
tuple based? What about for LDAP? Would we have to store the VUT
separately, or derive it from the contents of the DIT?
> I meant to be able to have multiple VUT service implementation and a
> way to associate a specific service to a specific user (mailet/handler
> other).
> Assigning a name is probably the simpler thing: association could be
> done via lookup on a directory (what I previously called store), via a
> ROLE specification in a dependency injection specification or any other
> idea we can have later.
Something like:
<VirtualUserTables>
<VirtualUserTable name="..." class="...">
...
</VirtualUserTable>
<VirtualUserTable name="..." class="...">
...
</VirtualUserTable>
<VirtualUserTable name="..." class="AggregatedVUT">
<vut> first-to-check </vut>
<vut> second-to-check </vut>
</VirtualUserTable>
</VirtualUserTables>
accessible in the standard way:
ctx.lookup("virtualusertable/" + vutName);
or via an ad hoc DI mechanism as available.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
