avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eung-ju Park" <co...@apache.org>
Subject Re: PR9270
Date Sun, 18 Aug 2002 08:37:14 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen McConnell" <mcconnell@apache.org>
To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" <avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: PR9270


>
>
> Eung-ju Park wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Stephen McConnell" <mcconnell@apache.org>
> >To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List"
<avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: PR9270
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Should this be at the meta-data level (as your proposing) or the
> >>meta-info level?  I think it would be more appropriate for the
> >>inforation to go into the blockinfo (in Phoenix) or as a component
> >>attribute in the Type DTD.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think it it meta-data. It specified by assembler, not block developer.
> >It is not about block it self. I think it is about block assembling.
> >
>
> The existace of a component that is itself a proxy is a developer
> decision.  For example, the org.omg.ORB class is a proxy to an
> implementation.  The Java VM handles the loading of the implemetation
> class behind the scenes.  But the developer needs to say to the
> assembler - hey - watch out - this class is already a proxy.
>  Potentially, an assembler could be dealing with alternative
> implentations of a particular service - one already a proxy, and another
> an interface.  Is there an issue for the assembler - or is this an issue
> for the container?  My feeling is that this is an issue between the
> container and the componet - however, if it is an assembler issue, then
> the question for the assemble is if a proxy class is allowed or not.
>  However, I doubt if this is a valid assembler question.  The only thing
> I can think of as an issue is if the class implements lifecyle
> interfaces that could be potentially absused and as a result, raise a
> security implication.

Yes. disabling proxy causes security problem. It is tradeoff.
Trade off performance and security.
I think enable/disable proxy is just assembler issue. Because current
proxy's feature is just export only permitted service interfaces.

PS. Sorry for my poor English.
I don't understand your opinion fully. And don't expressing my opinion
correctly.

>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Stephen J. McConnell
>
> OSM SARL
> digital products for a global economy
> mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
> http://www.osm.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message