Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Components in framework shouldn't depend on anything in application, right?
So why does UserLogin@framework/security/entitydef/entitymodel.xml reference Party@application/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml(same for Person and PartyGroup)? _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Yes, in theory. No guarantees on that yet, it is just what we are moving towards. When we do the framework separated release checking on and fixing these will be part of the effort. There is a plan to work around issues like this, namely the UserLogin and Party relationship, but it hasn't been implemented yet. I guess it comes back to time and money. I know people hate to hear that, but there's just no escaping reality. Even if we had all the time and money we needed, it still wouldn't happen because then we'd have no motivation to actually do it... ;) A bit of a conundrum that... -David On Sep 6, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > Components in framework shouldn't depend on anything in > application, right? > So why does UserLogin@framework/security/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > reference > Party@application/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml(same for Person and > PartyGroup)? > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If this work ever gets done, it would be nice to have security split out too -
so that userlogin security can be handled by a set of services outside of the party manager application (permissions and such). This could then lead to custom security implementations - such as the LDAP idea mentioned some time ago. David E. Jones wrote: > > Yes, in theory. No guarantees on that yet, it is just what we are > moving towards. When we do the framework separated release checking on > and fixing these will be part of the effort. > > There is a plan to work around issues like this, namely the UserLogin > and Party relationship, but it hasn't been implemented yet. > > I guess it comes back to time and money. I know people hate to hear > that, but there's just no escaping reality. Even if we had all the time > and money we needed, it still wouldn't happen because then we'd have no > motivation to actually do it... ;) A bit of a conundrum that... > > -David > > > On Sep 6, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Components in framework shouldn't depend on anything in application, >> right? >> So why does UserLogin@framework/security/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >> reference >> Party@application/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml(same for Person and >> PartyGroup)? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > ... [show rest of quote]
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |