Maurice, Can you show me your code? I would rather do it your way than mine. My policy file will be much more complicated than the one I am testing with.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Maurice Marrink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: wicket-security Custom Access Denied Page > > > Just finished testing your classes using my 1.3.1 development code and > both your way and my way work, as it should. > I don't get why using the permission instead of the permission name > does not work for you. > > I did however just think of 1 caveat in using the permission name > instead of the permission. > This might not be relevant for you (since you have a very small policy > file), but if anybody else is following this thread it might be > relevant to them. > If your policy file contains a principal "foo" with action "render" > for principal "p1" and a permission "foo" with action "enable" for > principal "p2" > your hive will return both principals p1 and p2 eventhough you did > hive.getPrincipals(new ...Permission("foo","enable"). > In this scenario it should only return p2 and not p1. > > Maurice > > On Feb 16, 2008 1:53 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2008 6:38 PM, Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Maurice, > > > > > > Here is my SimpleCachingHive and my Principal. I did not > extend Permissin, I > > > didn't think I had to. I pretty much based my implementation > on you tabs > > > example minus the tabs. Should I extend Permission and > override hashCode() > > > and equals(Object obj). And if I do, how do I force my hive to use my > > > extended Permission? > > > > No you don't have to extend permission, it is optional. You could for > > example create a ResourcePermission to check for permissions on file > > uploads or downloads. For example: > > permission org.ResourcePermission "/*.*", "read, write"; //enables > > write permission on the root and every subdir > > Your hive would not have to have explicit knowledge of this new > > permission, it is sufficient if you declare it in your policy file and > > in an ISecurityCheck do something like SwarmStrategy.hasPermission(new > > ResourcePermission("/somefile.file")); > > > > Anyway moving away from this theoretical exercise and to your problem. > > Your principal looks fine, if i have some time I'll try and run > it myself. > > One small difference i noticed (which should have no impact at all) is > > you also use the class to generate the hash and in my simpleprincipal > > i don't. But like i said this should not matter at all. > > > > Maurice > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
