portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Watler <wat...@wispertel.net>
Subject Re: Portal Page Implementation
Date Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:51:30 GMT
Gonzalo,

There is no requirement from the Jetspeed end of things to use 
repository security: it already implements the constraints and 
permissions above the persistence layer. If a single set of credentials 
is used, JCR sessions can also be pooled.

Of course, one can still use repository security if required for other 
reasons. However, beware that the models are not easily mapped on top of 
each other and it might take some clever coding to support existing 
Jetspeed utilities and tools that read and write the existing 
constraints and permissions.

Randy

Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado wrote:
> Hi Randy, 
>
> Yes I noticed what you said when building objects. Effectively JABX and
> JPA would be better but I didn't realized that they were not available
> when you built this. So castor was a great choice...
>
> I already built a basic set POJO objects for nodes that I will try to
> propagate as a standard base for future works. But first I have to make
> it work :-) Looks promising. This week I will try to have something
> usable.
>
> I'm using the OCM library with annotations but I'm considering keep
> apart annotations to let others work with the same set of pojo objects.
>
> My intention is to work with annotations until everything works and then
> detach POJOS from the annotations. This way will be easier for me to
> progress.
>
> Jackrabbit has been a surprise for me... It works great for now!
>
> I have another point that want to check with you. It's about security. 
>
> I think there are at least two ways to implement security:
>
>         1.- Using current implementation:
>         I will log in the repository with admin permissions and handle
>         by code all security constraints. This will fit best with
>         current implementation.
>         
>         2.- Log into the repository with user credentials.
>         This will cause jackrabbit handle all security. I Will need more
>         detailed planning but I think it can work best and provide
>         better support for namespaces and workspaces. But maybe I will
>         have to touch a little bit the rest of the ecosystem.
>
> Anyway I will try to do first (1) and then try if it will be nice to
> have (2) implemented...
>
> How do you see current approach?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
>
>
>
>   Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado
>   Consultor CRM - Ingeniero en
> Informática
>         M. +34 607814276
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El jue, 24-06-2010 a las 06:17 -0700, watler@wispertel.net escribió: 
>   
>> Gonzalo,
>>
>> Yes, ideally one would want a single set of POJO objects. However, this was not possible
for a number of reasons. The very fact that you noted the different number of objects in the
two implementation speaks to that, (yes, their functionality is more or less equivalent believe
it or not). Bottom line is that the different persistence providers: Castor and OJB are fairly
intrusive. We would have more luck with modern implementations like JAXB and JPA. That said,
the work required to implement the behaviors required based on the APIs far dwarfs the effort
to duplicate the simple members and accessors a shared set of beans might provide. Jetspeed
is exclusively interface/component orientated, so the common model interfaces provide the
required patterns.
>>
>> Conclusion: you'll need to implement your own set of beans for your JCR impl. If
you want to create a POJO layer within, there is hope in the future that it could be reused
in new persistence implementations.
>>
>> BTW... are you planning on using a OCM library to facilitate the JCR to object model
mappings?
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> --- gaguilar@aguilardelgado.com wrote:
>>
>> From: Gonzalo Aguilar Delgado <gaguilar@aguilardelgado.com>
>> To: jetspeed-dev@portals.apache.org
>> Cc: rwatler@apache.org
>> Subject: Portal Page Implementation
>> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:15:51 +0200
>>
>> Hi Randy, 
>>
>> I saw that you implemented most of the page manager structure.
>>
>> I'm just curious about that xml and db implementations use their own
>> implementation
>> of page, folder and rest of the objects. xml are under psml
>> implementation and db under impl.
>>
>> I don't understand well why to do this. I suppose that all base objects
>> should be common and keep
>> them as pojo objects. And then implement special details under child
>> classes. 
>>
>> Why it's necessary duplicate every object and recreate hierarchy for
>> each implementation?
>>
>> Also current implementation of xml and db differs. Maybe one is more
>> advanced than the other? 
>> I say that because there are much more files under .impl than
>> under .psml
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org


Mime
View raw message