Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 46517 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2005 19:16:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Oct 2005 19:16:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5101 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2005 19:16:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 5063 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2005 19:16:14 -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 List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 5052 invoked by uid 99); 18 Oct 2005 19:16:14 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:16:14 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [209.86.89.69] (HELO smtpauth09.mail.atl.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.69) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:16:14 -0700 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=HjwPe2fpzkKw059ZzPDA6aYMkEdANZJX5gIhbWFGNKL7OOO8TVl3uP3k7buKggBR; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [129.33.49.251] (helo=[9.37.214.129]) by smtpauth09.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ERwwC-0004OB-Qe for dev@geronimo.apache.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:15:52 -0400 Message-ID: <435549E0.3000406@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:15:44 -0400 From: Joe Bohn User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Should keystore gbean be moved to security from console? References: <732979ab3964e1c072916939c671eb97@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <732979ab3964e1c072916939c671eb97@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c408501814fc19611aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79b281ccc87fba9de42cbfa4c7afc96e88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 129.33.49.251 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I think that depends upon how much you want to move into the security module? If it is just the GBean, then I think that's probably a good move. However, I suspect that the management portlet itself would have to remain in the console application until we get a more dynamic portal server that is included in G rather than just the console application itself. Ideally, I think it would be great if we could include all of the management capabilities (including the portlets) with the specific component they manage such that the management capability is available only if the component itself is included in the configuration. -Joe David Jencks wrote: > I just committed GERONIMO-887 which includes a keystore management gbean > in the console application. I would think this would be of more general > use and the code should be in the security module and the gbean deployed > in the security configuration. > > Comments? > > thanks > david jencks > > > -- Joe Bohn joe.bohn@earthlink.net "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot