Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <22574768.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: huntc <huntc@mac.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ JNDI support only for testing?
In-Reply-To: <22562840.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <21925743.post@talk.nabble.com> <22530093.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <22556493.post@talk.nabble.com> <22562840.post@talk.nabble.com>


janylj wrote:
> 
> I was trying to have a centralized repository of destinations and
> ConnectionFactory. I could use a uniform namespace for destination to
> avoid conflicting. However, I don't want to allow users creating
> destination or ConnectionFactory on the fly. I would like them accessing
> the broker only through administrative objects.
> 

I believe you are going about this the wrong way. What you really want is
topic/queue authorisation i.e. only let certain authenticated users do
certain things within the broker.

You might find my blog entry on securing ActiveMQ useful. Authorisation is
covered.

http://christopherhunt-software.blogspot.com/2009/03/mutual-ssl-authentication-and-ldap.html

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-JNDI-support-only-for-testing--tp21925743p22574768.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.