The code is on wicketstuff svn https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicket-security/swarm-parent/hive/src/test/java/org/apache/wicket/security/hive/HiveExtensionTest.java
Perhaps if you can show me in a similar test setup how your code is failing we might figure out why. Note that above class is not standalone it requires some classes only found in svn trunk but it should give you a starting point. trunk is located at https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicket-security/ and contains a maven multiproject. Maurice On Feb 18, 2008 5:23 AM, Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
