jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Micah Whitacre" <mkwhita...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JSR 283 and PrincipalProviders
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:16:13 GMT
  Thinking about it some more doesn't using the UserManager require
that a user already be logged into a session?  So an admin user would
have to log into a session to obtain the UserManager and create users
prior to other users logging into a session and expecting a non
anonymous principal from being associated with the session.
  I'm not sure if that will work in my situation as I won't know all
usernames/password to add to the UserManager ahead of time.  In my
situation actually I'll already have a principal before I'll call
Repository.login(Credentials).  So I'm already translating that
principal into credentials and ideally the subject of the session
would have a principal that is the same or at least has the same name.
 So in this situation would I think I would want a PrincipalProvider.
Am I correct in that assumption?

I think I misunderstood in your previous response what use case you
wanted me to log an issue for.  I have logged another issue[1] with
respect to the the available login modules not supporting custom

Thanks in advance for you help,

[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1641

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:57 AM, Angela Schreiber <anchela@day.com> wrote:
> hi micah
> first of all: principal discovery and/or user management is not
> covered by JSR 283 and left to the implementation.
> what jackrabbit core currently does:
>> retrieve adminId and anonymousId from the config in order to
>  initialize those users (if missing some internal default
>  id value is used).
>> it's not meant that other users must be configured in the
>  repository.xml
>> instead you should be able to obtain the UserManager from the
>  JackrabbitSession in order to create additional users/groups
>  as you need them.
>> the default principal provider obtains principals from
>  the user manager.
>> Looking through the code I
>> came to the conclusion I'd need to write a PrincipalProvider that
>> would support the multiple Principals with various names.  Is that a
>> correct assumption?
> see above. it's not required unless you want the principals
> not to be obtained from the user manager.
>> And running a test that calls RepositoryImpl.login(Credentials) gives
>> me the following stack trace:
> that's probably a bug. can you open an issue for that?
> regards
> angela

View raw message