Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of tvhobbs@googlemail.com
 designates 74.125.78.148 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=wyhQCTsEYFRbOQ6jLyEK7ZkQylZtBdm3LGDzZLKqCyJBvJOJEX4clvbO//H7AJcVmA
         7OY9EMtGj29cvSXy3/VJIJYKI/xSu82Hd43/Ubiwkb+waJbsSDrDqJgxNXkhH7TZjyJg
         coRiW0j+rcKpgx2oyHlwxHg2VYsTX/M2/zUw0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4C269B69.1030100@zeus.net.au>
References: <4BF7B43C.2060302@zeus.net.au>
	<AANLkTinX1iNbJsvSkDtX5mIusEnTc9SJTRuEBvsB4RKW@mail.gmail.com>
	<F9941221-96E5-4ECA-8DB2-A3EB8D71410B@gmail.com>
	<77F1E32F67C8D5479858C0C7E93EB465577AF2@WAL-MAIL.global.avidww.com>
	<4BFB3741.4080408@zeus.net.au>
	<FCEBE007-7AAE-420C-830F-F157442E5453@gmail.com>
	<4BFB68B3.8070403@zeus.net.au>
	<EA4B7608-E1B2-4FC0-BC15-E1537243EE99@gmail.com>
	<4BFC58CD.5070901@zeus.net.au>
	<6CE2CB17-96E3-4801-B859-A394B54EBAC7@gmail.com>
	<4BFCB4CD.7010809@zeus.net.au>
	<4BFCBDC2.4000602@zeus.net.au>
	<4BFD0592.2000106@zeus.net.au>
	<FCD5149B-45D6-43A0-9611-91C3A42A9F81@gmail.com>
	<4BFD3BBA.7060504@wonderly.org>
	<4C01FF7F.9050300@zeus.net.au>
	<4C1F8B51.6030208@cox.net>
	<4C2076D3.1010603@zeus.net.au>
	<4C269B69.1030100@zeus.net.au>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:11:02 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikYQQmeL0R8a00lKrK6g_9OemSrGjC-KTOUZhi3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ServiceRegistrar
From: Tom Hobbs <tvhobbs@googlemail.com>
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174be96e64d6b4048a12a92c

--0015174be96e64d6b4048a12a92c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Does this not hook into the security discussions on internet-visible
services?

You can satisfy your use case with authorisation levels and just not give
"everyone" the authority to register services.  To my mind, this seems
cleaner (although not necessarily better or easier), than having two breeds
of ServiceRegistrar.

Just a thought.

Tom


On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:

> For a ServiceRegistrar implementation where you don't want to register
> Services (A static ServiceRegistrar used only for lookup) would returning a
> null ServiceRegistration suffice?  Or is this fraught with danger, has
> anyone ever tried it?
>
> Use case:  You've got an internet facing Registrar and you don't want
> external Services to register.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.
>
>
>
>

--0015174be96e64d6b4048a12a92c--