cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Support multiple policy interceptor providers per policy assertion
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:12:13 GMT
On Monday, January 30, 2012 9:21:58 AM Andrei Shakirin wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> 2.6.0 is definitely OK for me.
> Backport to 2.5.x can be difficult, because one class in api package should
> be changed to support it:
> 
> public interface PolicyInterceptorProviderRegistry extends Registry<QName,
> PolicyInterceptorProvider>  to public interface
> PolicyInterceptorProviderRegistry extends Registry<QName,
> Set<PolicyInterceptorProvider>>

Yea.  That's kind of what I expected.   If it's just for 2.6, then that's 
perfect.  Send a patch!

Dan


> 
> Regards,
> Andrei.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
> Sent: 27 January 2012 22:16
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Cc: Andrei Shakirin
> Subject: Re: Support multiple policy interceptor providers per policy
> assertion
> On Friday, January 27, 2012 4:38:41 PM Andrei Shakirin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > At the moment policy mechanism is very powerful, but have some
> > limitations.
> > One of them is that it is possible to register only one
> > InterceptorProvider for one policy assertion.
> > 
> > PolicyInterceptorProviderRegistry interface extends Regsitry as:
> > 
> > public interface PolicyInterceptorProviderRegistry extends
> > Registry<QName, PolicyInterceptorProvider> {
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > I see some use cases where PolicyInterceptorProvider(s) are
> > independent, but associated with the same policy assertion (for
> > example in complex authentication case).
> > 
> > Proposal: extend PolicyInterceptorProviderRegistry to save set of
> > PolicyInterceptorProvider for one assertion. If proposal is accepted I
> > will provide patch.
> 
> Sure.   Definitely for 2.6.0.  I'd have to see that patch to see how
> applicable it would be to backport to 2.5.x.    Is this something that would
> be needed for 2.5.x or can we pursue this just for 2.6?    The policy stuff
> has moved around (to resolve split packages) so backporting stuff may be a
> bit difficult (but not impossible).
> 
> Dan
> 
> > Jira issue is already created:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-4073.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andrei.
> 
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder -
> http://coders.talend.com
-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Mime
View raw message