activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ken Gallo (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Updated: (AMQ-908) Authorization plugin should have configurable principal classes
Date Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:22:02 GMT
     [ ]

Ken Gallo updated AMQ-908:

    Attachment: AuthorizationPlugin.patch

Implemented like so:

                <authorizationEntry queue=">" read="admins" write="admins" admin="admins"
groupClass="org.apache.activemq.jaas.GroupPrincipal" />
                <authorizationEntry queue="USERS.>" read="users" write="users" admin="users"
groupClass="" />

Creates an instance of the groupClass through the constructor with String name as a parameter.
If the groupClass doesn't have a constructor then it uses the setName() method.
If both fail, an exception is thrown.

> Authorization plugin should have configurable principal classes
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: AMQ-908
>                 URL:
>             Project: ActiveMQ
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Broker
>    Affects Versions: 4.0.1
>            Reporter: Aaron Mulder
>             Fix For: 4.2.0, 4.0.3
>         Attachments: AuthorizationPlugin.patch
> Currently, if you configure the authorization plugin, it assumes that all principals
listed should be of type {{org.apache.activemq.jaas.GroupPrincipal}}.  This is OK if you're
using ActiveMQ LoginModules, but since there's a fairly small supply of those, it would be
great if you could use arbitrary login modules and tell the authorization plugin which principal
classes to use.  For example, {{groupClass="}} or
something like that.  A good first step would be to let you change the group class.  A good
second step would be to let you specify user and group classes and then somehow indicate which
names are which (e.g. {{admin="administrators,user:aaron,user:bob"}} or whatever).  Someday
maybe it will be nice to support any arbitrary combination of principal classes but that seems
far away.
> When instantiating the principal classes, I imagine we should use a constructor with
a single String argument if available, or else a default constructor plus a "setName" method,
or else I guess bail.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message