Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 30969 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2007 07:44:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2007 07:44:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 45894 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2007 07:44:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 45877 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2007 07:44:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 45863 invoked by uid 99); 25 Apr 2007 07:44:43 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:44:43 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.21.53.35] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (72.21.53.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:44:36 -0700 Received: from [72.21.53.38] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HgcAh-000569-Q8 for users@activemq.apache.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:44:15 -0700 Message-ID: <10175911.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:44:15 -0700 (PDT) From: rousseau To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Authentication pattern with JMS? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: steve.cook1@excite.com References: <10173547.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org James.Strachan wrote: > > It'd be much eaiser to just create a connnection per user/client and > use the built in JMS authentication > (ConnectionFactory.createConnection()) > http://activemq.apache.org/security.html > Thanks for the quick reply. The original reason for wanting to avoid the built-in JMS authentication was to avoid having two separate authentication setups - one for JMS, and one for sockets. Thinking about this some more, maybe a good approach would be to use JAAS for both, looking up to the same store.. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Authentication-pattern-with-JMS--tf3642791s2354.html#a10175911 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.