jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Waschkowski" <mwaschkow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: public review of 283 - checkPermission
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:27:55 GMT
Angela,

Thanks for pointing it out! I completely agree, I didn't see the optional
feature additions, I'm glad is going to fit so well with my above suggestion
:)

Please consider my suggestion retracted.

Best,

Mark

On 7/26/07, Angela Schreiber <anchela@day.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> But exceptions shouldn't be used for flow control, so I would add:
> >> boolean Session.isPermissable(..) or
> >> boolean Session.hasAccess(..) or
> >> boolean Session.getPermission(..)
>
> > or
> > boolean Session.isGranted(..)
>
> As far as i know the latest version includes an new (optional)
> access-control-discovery feature, which also defines
> privilege discovery through the AccessControlManager interface (see
> section 6.11.1).
> notably:
>
> boolean
> AccessControlManager.hasPrivilege(String absPath, String[] privileges)
>
> Privilege[]
> AccessControlManager.getPrivileges(String absPath)
>
> Privilege[]
> AccessControlManager.getSupportedPrivileges(String absPath)
>
> It would look a bit strange to me extending the set of
> methods on the Session interface (Session.checkPermission is
> part of Level 1 compliance set), if at the same time an new,
> optional feature gets added to spec with the same goal.
>
> angela
>
>


-- 
Best,

Mark Waschkowski

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message