heh. it is a functional example of a fully implemented authorization strategy. but it doesnt have any fancy features, nor will they be added to it in the future. it is meant to serve as an example, so users can see how to implement their own authorization strategies.
what more do you want me to say exactly? -igor On Jan 14, 2008 1:51 PM, Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What? Really? Fuck. Can you please elaborate? Did I waste every second > of the time I spent looking at the examples on wicketstuff? I applied these > examples to my webapp. Did I implement some type of "pretend" authorization > strategy? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:31 AM > To: users@wicket.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Type safe roles for AUTH-ROLES? > > wicket-auth-roles is just an example. its not really meant to be > something you drop into your application, for that there is > wicketstuff-wasp and wicketstuff-swarm > > -igor > > > On Jan 12, 2008 9:14 AM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I have several successful Wicket projects going, and in all have used my > own > > authorization strategy based on annotations. I'm just trying > > wicket-auth-roles for my next project, but seem confused by the apparent > > String-only roles. I already have a domain model where a User has a Role > or > > Role(s), where Role is a class. This promotes type-safety, etc, etc. > > > > But, I can't go: > > > > @AuthorizeInstantiation({ Role.ADMIN, Role.SUPER_USER, > > Role.MEMBER_SERVICE_REP, Role.MEMBER }) > > > > I also can't do: > > > > @AuthorizeInstantiation({ Role.ADMIN.name(), Role.SUPER_USER.name (), > > Role.MEMBER_SERVICE_REP.name(), Role.MEMBER.name() }) > > > > So, do I *have* to use Strings? Or is there another way? If I have to > use > > Strings, then I either have to redefine all my roles and change how the DB > > stores them, or just use the names of my own roles (i.e . "SUPER_USER" > which > > later my UserAuthorizer does a Role.valueOf(String) on), and risk typoes > > messing me up, or have Role.SUPER_USER and Role.SUPER_USER_NAME as a > public > > static final String. > > > > It's been a long week - I could be missing something. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Jeremy > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
