geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Quintin Beukes <>
Subject Re: Possible Bug in Geronimo when doing remote login with OpenEJB RemoteInitialContextFactory
Date Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:04:46 GMT
Sorry, missed the message.

As I suggested on the
ticket(, that a
good default for an "absent" option is to have it global. Which is the
same behaviour as previously.

A problem with documentation is that people don't always read the
"upgrade docs" before the "upgrade". it's good practice, but rarely
done, and one should try and make all user's experiences comfortable.

I think doing all the following should do the trick. They are changes
in UI as well as behaviour. People get used to doing things in a
certain way, and if they do their 'things' and it doesn't work, sure
it's their fault but it still makes their life more difficult and
their experience of Geronimo more unpleasant. Successful software
usually design around these points of failure to provide for all kinds
of users/situations so their experiences are more of a smooth ride.
Further, to make it more clear what has gone wrong when it DOES happen
(like when they use a deployment plan which worked perfectly with
Geronimo 2.1), the following helps out with that as well.

- Purely when the attribute is absent, thus NULL (compared to
true/false), fail the deploy (required attribute) and show a message
similar to the following: "Since Geronimo 2.2, the 'global' realm
attribute is required. See
<http://localhost:8080/console/global-attribute-update.html> for
details". I think hosting it in the localhost helps for those people
who deploy in situations where they don't have the internet. Rare?
Even necessary? It does happen though. I've done deployments 3KM
underground, and then you are very far away from the net.
- When you try to connect to a realm which exists, but is not global,
don't show "No LoginModules defined", rather say something like "Realm
'mySecurityRealm' is not global"
- When creating a security realm through the console, move the
"Global" option to the top of the list (it helps it being noticed).
Alternatively add a *new to it (which might look a bit corny).
- How about branching out from the start. Instead of doing an "Add New
Security Realm" on the realms listing, split it into 2 options, ie.
"Add new Local Realm", "Add new Global Realm".


On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Juergen Weber <> wrote:
> What about a hint in the Exception message? This is the first thing one reads
> if something goes wrong, much earlier than documentation.
> Greetings, Juergen
> djencks wrote:
>> That's certainly a danger.  Do you think we could solve this with
>> documentation?  The non-global realms interfere less with each other
>> so I think they make a better default.  Any other opinions?
>> thanks
>> david jencks
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at

Quintin Beukes

View raw message