> > I have finally understood Eric's proposal regarding Subjects and > > Principals. A Subject (a user) can be known by many names (Principals), > > such as Joe, uid=42, whatever; each name is associated with a set of > > permissions; it doesn't make any sense to ask what a Subject's set of > > permissions is; it makes sense to ask what a Subject's Principal's > > set of permissions is. Is that a correct understanding? Now, could > > anybody show a real-life example of the use of this? Because I would > > have thought that, no matter how a Subject is known, the permissions > > for that Subject should be the same. > > I agree, and still feel that if we offer a default implementation of > authorization it should map permissions to subjects (possible via roles) > rather than to principles. A subjects permissions should be the same > regardless of how they are identified. (Of course, other things can vary > the mapping, per our discussions redgarding Scope/Context).
I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that each principal can be used to provide a different set of permissions/authorisation depending on which application the Subject is logged into. A Subject provides a single authentication object for all applications. Chris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
