geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianny Damour <gianny.dam...@optusnet.com.au>
Subject Re: [RTC] pluggable jacc
Date Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:03:46 GMT
Gianny Damour wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I had a look to the patch and I think that it will take me about one 
> night to review it. As I will be on holidays this Friday, only 2 
> nights left, and away from any computer for 3 weeks, I am happy to 
> vote now if need be.
>
> I do have a couple of questions, more for my education than anything 
> else:
> * why is the root security element used as a placeholder for group 
> substitution in the geronimo-application schema? I would have thought 
> that this placeholder would be better in the geronimo-security schema 
> where the out-of-the-box/Geronimo substitution group is defined; and
> * I think that SecurityBuilder should have a way to modify the 
> Environment of a Web-app module and, hence, that an additional method 
> should be added to do that during the createModule phase. Otherwise, I 
> am not sure how additional parent modules or specific dependencies can 
> be added to a Web-app module such that the GBeans added by the builder 
> can run.
>
> Also, it is worth to underline that the definition of a substitutable 
> service element, which is currently replaceable by a gbean element 
> seems to be a very flexible configuration mechanism.
>
> What would be awesome is to be able to register additional 
> ElementConverter with SchemaConversionUtils such that developers 
> working on their home grown substitution groups do not need to change 
> this class.

Forget this point... While trying to see how this could be done I 
discovered that it is actually already done, by XmlBeansUtil...

Thanks,
Gianny

>
> Obvisously, I am sold :)
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I think my latest patch for pluggable jacc is plausible to commit,  
>> see http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1563?page=all and  
>> be sure to apply only the v4 patches.
>>
>> I realize this is a significant amount of work, so at this time I'm  
>> not actually asking any PMC members to review this, but I would  
>> greatly appreciate it if at least 3 could spend a couple minutes  
>> estimating how long they think it would take them to evaluate the  
>> patch and when they might be able to complete evaluating it, as this  
>> will personally affect my plans for the next few weeks.
>>
>> I think all the committers and other contributors might find this  
>> information useful in planning their development activities for the  
>> next few months.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



Mime
View raw message