Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 46947 invoked from network); 30 May 2004 20:00:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 30 May 2004 20:00:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 59676 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2004 20:00:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 58780 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2004 20:00:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 58758 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2004 20:00:24 -0000 Received: from [209.233.18.245] (HELO public.coredevelopers.net) (209.233.18.245) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 May 2004 13:00:24 -0700 Received: from coredevelopers.net (gateway [192.168.2.253]) by public.coredevelopers.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 8.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id AF2EE23ABD for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 12:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <40BA3D4E.3020405@coredevelopers.net> Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:00:14 -0700 From: Jeremy Boynes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Security configuration & name conflict Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N In Alan's ConfigurationEntryRealmLocal the JAAS Application name is defined using the "JAASId" attribute; in my JMX remoting connector it is specified using the "ApplicationConfigName" attribute. Having two names is dumb - does anyone have a preference or alternative? To support remoting I added a Realm into the default configuration that uses properties files stored in ${geronimo.home}/var/security - this is obviously not very secure, but probably better than nothing. I am assuming that in the final release default security will be set up by the installer. Is this good enough for the default configuration? -- Jeremy