Well, the thing is that we don't check isEnableAllowed on many places
either. Take link as an example. Even if component is not allowed to be
enabled, it's still not rendered as disabled.
The question is: Should it be? I think so, but maybe there is a good
reason why it ain't. Anyone?
-Matej
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
there was a long discussion on this. i first proposed what you propose, but
later i changed my mind, but still am on the fence :)
the thing here is that isenabled() and isallowenabled() are orthogonal in
the sense that one is meant to be implemented by the user and the other by
the security policy.
so if our isenabled() checks for isallowenabled() then anytime the user
overrides it they have to remember to check for isallowenabled() - and if
they forget they break security.
on the other hand if the user is implementing a component that needs to
properly handle the disabled state they have to do the check
isEnabled()&&isAllowedEnabled() which also has a potential for breaking
security - but as a component _implementor_ they should be a bit more
aware.
the first case happens a lot more often so we cater for that one.
the perfect situation would be to have another hook for the user to
implement, and have isenabled() as final that performs both checks. the
problem is coming up with a good name for that new method.
-Igor
On 10/8/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have two methods that determine whether component should be allowed.
Do we always check both?
I mean, look at Link#onComponentTag, we only check
isEnabled. So even though enable is not allowed, we still render link as
enabled. Is this right?
Shouldn't e.g. isEnabled() return false if the ENABLE action is not
permitted?
-Matej
