Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-jetspeed-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 18759 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2002 16:57:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jun 2002 16:57:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 24470 invoked by uid 97); 24 Jun 2002 16:57:29 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24444 invoked by uid 97); 24 Jun 2002 16:57:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jetspeed Developers List" Reply-To: "Jetspeed Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24265 invoked by uid 98); 24 Jun 2002 16:57:27 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) From: "David Sean Taylor" To: "'Jetspeed Developers List'" Subject: RE: Status of proposals/Security.txt? Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:56:16 -0700 Message-ID: <001801c21ba0$0e516d90$4c58f742@MOZART> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-MDRemoteIP: 66.247.88.76 X-Return-Path: david@bluesunrise.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N You have to check out from a particular branch. This code is not merged to the cvs head. To check out the branch: cvs co -r security_14 jakarta-jetspeed The current status was covered in a email on Thursday of last week. We are proposing that the branch be merged to cvs head. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Grant [mailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:26 AM > To: Jetspeed Developers List > Subject: Status of proposals/Security.txt? > > > This looks reasonable - and timely, since I've a requirement > for something along these lines. But a quick scan of the > current code doesn't turn up anything*. What's the status of > this proposal? If work is ongoing, who do I talk to about it > (since it looks like I'm going to have to do something > similar anyway)? > > Cheers, > jan > > * Or I'm going blind and suffering from Monday-morning-itis. > > PS. Quick comment: > > section 3.4.1 Authentication (Required) > > What does void logout() do? If it's going to live in that > interface, surely it should be > void logout(User user); > ? > > Section 3.4.5 Security Entity Maintenance (Optional) > > There seems to be a disparity in the RoleManagement interface > - should grantRole, revokeRole both pass User objects or > username Strings? If the former, GroupManagement needs to be > brought into line (or both calls added). > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > -- > jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. > http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 > 9287088 Fax +44 > (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Theory and > practice _are_ the same thing. In theory. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: