Security refactor
Locked
12
12
 
Administrator
|
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? Jacques |
|
Administrator
|
BTW I have just learned today that Security refactor is a revolution:
http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html :o) The standard mode is called evolution http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Evolution jQuery branch is as well. As it's less controversed, I guess it will be merged back sooner or later, will executioncontext have a chance? BTW it's related to http://dashes.com/anil/2010/09/forking-is-a-feature.html and for those not aware but still interested there is currently a discussion (subject: "Forking is a Feature" reactions?) in [hidden email] ML (it's open to everyone) Jacques From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]> > Hi, > > Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? > > Jacques > |
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Nothing is going on with it right now. There was little interest in it,
so it died. -Adrian On 9/13/2010 1:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? > > Jacques > > |
|
Administrator
|
RIP :o)
Jacques From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> > Nothing is going on with it right now. There was little interest in it, > so it died. > > -Adrian > > On 9/13/2010 1:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? >> >> Jacques >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
I think we've hit the point where large framework changes like the ExecutionContext and the security redesign have so much of an impact on higher level code and on large numbers of people in the community that it is unlikely they will be implemented and pushed out. If they were to be completed there would then be a TON of stuff that could be cleaned up and eliminated from the framework, which would also be great, but also have a lot of impact on people/organizations and on existing code. This is not really likely, and probably not really a good idea. That's why I started a separate project to incorporate many redesign ideas for the framework (ie Moqui), and it is structured differently to help with certain other difficulties we're having in OFBiz (ie framework only instead of full stack, fully moderated instead of community-driven, etc). Anyway, I put together a list a while ago with all of the major differences between Moqui and the OFBiz Framework and that is still easily available on the Moqui SourceForge site in a forum post. Of course, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't started any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;) ). -David On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? > > Jacques > |
|
|
Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do so.
The Example component is converted over to the new security design, but the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new design when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would have a big impact on existing installations isn't true. -Adrian On 9/13/2010 8:33 AM, David E Jones wrote: > > I think we've hit the point where large framework changes like the ExecutionContext and the security redesign have so much of an impact on higher level code and on large numbers of people in the community that it is unlikely they will be implemented and pushed out. If they were to be completed there would then be a TON of stuff that could be cleaned up and eliminated from the framework, which would also be great, but also have a lot of impact on people/organizations and on existing code. > > This is not really likely, and probably not really a good idea. That's why I started a separate project to incorporate many redesign ideas for the framework (ie Moqui), and it is structured differently to help with certain other difficulties we're having in OFBiz (ie framework only instead of full stack, fully moderated instead of community-driven, etc). Anyway, I put together a list a while ago with all of the major differences between Moqui and the OFBiz Framework and that is still easily available on the Moqui SourceForge site in a forum post. Of course, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't started any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;) ). > > -David > > > On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? >> >> Jacques >> > > |
|
Can you point to a description how it it should be setup?
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:23 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote: > Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do so. > The Example component is converted over to the new security design, but > the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. > > One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the > old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new design > when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would have > a big impact on existing installations isn't true. > > -Adrian > > On 9/13/2010 8:33 AM, David E Jones wrote: > > > > I think we've hit the point where large framework changes like the ExecutionContext and the security redesign have so much of an impact on higher level code and on large numbers of people in the community that it is unlikely they will be implemented and pushed out. If they were to be completed there would then be a TON of stuff that could be cleaned up and eliminated from the framework, which would also be great, but also have a lot of impact on people/organizations and on existing code. > > > > This is not really likely, and probably not really a good idea. That's why I started a separate project to incorporate many redesign ideas for the framework (ie Moqui), and it is structured differently to help with certain other difficulties we're having in OFBiz (ie framework only instead of full stack, fully moderated instead of community-driven, etc). Anyway, I put together a list a while ago with all of the major differences between Moqui and the OFBiz Framework and that is still easily available on the Moqui SourceForge site in a forum post. Of course, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't started any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;) ). > > > > -David > > > > > > On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? > >> > >> Jacques > >> > > > > -- Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. |
|
Administrator
|
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/OFBiz+Security+Redesign ?
Jacques From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]> > Can you point to a description how it it should be setup? > > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:23 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote: >> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do so. >> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, but >> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >> >> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new design >> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would have >> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 9/13/2010 8:33 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> > >> > I think we've hit the point where large framework changes like the ExecutionContext and the security redesign have so much of >> > an impact on higher level code and on large numbers of people in the community that it is unlikely they will be implemented and >> > pushed out. If they were to be completed there would then be a TON of stuff that could be cleaned up and eliminated from the >> > framework, which would also be great, but also have a lot of impact on people/organizations and on existing code. >> > >> > This is not really likely, and probably not really a good idea. That's why I started a separate project to incorporate many >> > redesign ideas for the framework (ie Moqui), and it is structured differently to help with certain other difficulties we're >> > having in OFBiz (ie framework only instead of full stack, fully moderated instead of community-driven, etc). Anyway, I put >> > together a list a while ago with all of the major differences between Moqui and the OFBiz Framework and that is still easily >> > available on the Moqui SourceForge site in a forum post. Of course, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't >> > started any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;) ). >> > >> > -David >> > >> > >> > On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? >> >> >> >> Jacques >> >> >> > >> > > > -- > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my project and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz.
-james
|
|
Administrator
|
Interesting...
Thanks Jacques From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> > Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my project > and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz. > > -james > > Adrian Crum wrote: >> >> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do so. >> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, but >> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >> >> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new design >> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would have >> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 9/13/2010 8:33 AM, David E Jones wrote: >>> >>> I think we've hit the point where large framework changes like the >>> ExecutionContext and the security redesign have so much of an impact on >>> higher level code and on large numbers of people in the community that it >>> is unlikely they will be implemented and pushed out. If they were to be >>> completed there would then be a TON of stuff that could be cleaned up and >>> eliminated from the framework, which would also be great, but also have a >>> lot of impact on people/organizations and on existing code. >>> >>> This is not really likely, and probably not really a good idea. That's >>> why I started a separate project to incorporate many redesign ideas for >>> the framework (ie Moqui), and it is structured differently to help with >>> certain other difficulties we're having in OFBiz (ie framework only >>> instead of full stack, fully moderated instead of community-driven, etc). >>> Anyway, I put together a list a while ago with all of the major >>> differences between Moqui and the OFBiz Framework and that is still >>> easily available on the Moqui SourceForge site in a forum post. Of >>> course, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't started >>> any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;) >>> ). >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor? >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540080.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
Thanks for looking. Moving to Apache Shiro should be an evolution ....
James
|
|
Administrator
|
Looks more like a revolution IMO (ie a branch ;), want to be involved?
Jacques From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> > Thanks for looking. Moving to Apache Shiro should be an evolution .... > > James > > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> Interesting... >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>> Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my >>> project >>> and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz. >>> >>> -james >>> >>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do so. >>>> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, but >>>> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >>>> >>>> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >>>> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new design >>>> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would have >>>> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
How can i help on this?
- james
|
|
Administrator
|
A 1st step would be to show a POC attached to Jira issue; explanation in comment, sufficient snippet of code to understand in patch.
When I work on such I try to use the Example component to avoid any bad side effects; ie Example is a kind of sandbox, nobody will jump to your throat if you make a little mistake. Anyway you would not be the 1st responsible, as a commiter would have to review and commit before it get into core. In one word, show us the case. It's also good to know that 1st Andrew (Zeneski) tried something on this (authentication et especially authorization), David "rejected" it, then Adrian and David tried to work together but finally did not agree. So there is still an executioncontext branch but it seems almost dead. I'm maybe not totally right about this, but at least it's how I see it. Thanks Jacques From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> > How can i help on this? > > - james > > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> Looks more like a revolution IMO (ie a branch ;), want to be involved? >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>> Thanks for looking. Moving to Apache Shiro should be an evolution .... >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>> Interesting... >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>> Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my >>>>> project >>>>> and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz. >>>>> >>>>> -james >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do >>>>>> so. >>>>>> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, >>>>>> but >>>>>> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >>>>>> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new design >>>>>> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would >>>>>> have >>>>>> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html >>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2541484.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
Thanks for the explanation. Will probably look into this next month.
-james
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
This description of events isn't entirely true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt excluded from the design process. David simply asked that we discuss the design before code was committed. The security redesign was the outcome of that discussion. As far as I know, David and I agreed on the final design, but interest in it fell off. I ended up being the only person working on it. Since then, David has included the security redesign in his new project. -Adrian On 9/16/2010 12:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > A 1st step would be to show a POC attached to Jira issue; explanation in > comment, sufficient snippet of code to understand in patch. When I work > on such I try to use the Example component to avoid any bad side > effects; ie Example is a kind of sandbox, nobody will jump to your > throat if you make a little mistake. Anyway you would not be the 1st > responsible, as a commiter would have to review and commit before it get > into core. > > In one word, show us the case. > > It's also good to know that 1st Andrew (Zeneski) tried something on this > (authentication et especially authorization), David "rejected" it, then > Adrian and David tried to work together but finally did not agree. So > there is still an executioncontext branch but it seems almost dead. I'm > maybe not totally right about this, but at least it's how I see it. > > Thanks > > Jacques > > From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >> How can i help on this? >> >> - james >> >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>> Looks more like a revolution IMO (ie a branch ;), want to be involved? >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>> Thanks for looking. Moving to Apache Shiro should be an evolution .... >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Interesting... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>>> Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my >>>>>> project >>>>>> and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz. >>>>>> >>>>>> -james >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do >>>>>>> so. >>>>>>> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >>>>>>> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new >>>>>>> design >>>>>>> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html >>>> >>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2541484.html >> >> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > |
|
Administrator
|
From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> This description of events isn't entirely true. > > David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt > excluded from the design process. David simply asked that we discuss the > design before code was committed. Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I knew I had left some points behind > The security redesign was the outcome of that discussion. As far as I > know, David and I agreed on the final design, but interest in it fell > off. I ended up being the only person working on it. Since then, David > has included the security redesign in his new project. I tought there were some stumbling blocks, notably when merging your works. Jacques > -Adrian > > On 9/16/2010 12:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> A 1st step would be to show a POC attached to Jira issue; explanation in >> comment, sufficient snippet of code to understand in patch. When I work >> on such I try to use the Example component to avoid any bad side >> effects; ie Example is a kind of sandbox, nobody will jump to your >> throat if you make a little mistake. Anyway you would not be the 1st >> responsible, as a commiter would have to review and commit before it get >> into core. >> >> In one word, show us the case. >> >> It's also good to know that 1st Andrew (Zeneski) tried something on this >> (authentication et especially authorization), David "rejected" it, then >> Adrian and David tried to work together but finally did not agree. So >> there is still an executioncontext branch but it seems almost dead. I'm >> maybe not totally right about this, but at least it's how I see it. >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>> How can i help on this? >>> >>> - james >>> >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>> Looks more like a revolution IMO (ie a branch ;), want to be involved? >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>> Thanks for looking. Moving to Apache Shiro should be an evolution .... >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my >>>>>>> project >>>>>>> and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -james >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do >>>>>>>> so. >>>>>>>> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >>>>>>>> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new >>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html >>>>> >>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2541484.html >>> >>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> > |
|
|
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >> This description of events isn't entirely true. >> >> David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt >> excluded from the design process. David simply asked that we discuss >> the design before code was committed. > > Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I knew I had left some points > behind > >> The security redesign was the outcome of that discussion. As far as I >> know, David and I agreed on the final design, but interest in it fell >> off. I ended up being the only person working on it. Since then, David >> has included the security redesign in his new project. > > I tought there were some stumbling blocks, notably when merging your works. We only disagreed on the workflow. David wanted to commit all the changes at once and I wanted to commit them a little at a time. |
|
|
On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >>> This description of events isn't entirely true. >>> >>> David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt >>> excluded from the design process. David simply asked that we discuss >>> the design before code was committed. >> >> Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I knew I had left some points >> behind >> >>> The security redesign was the outcome of that discussion. As far as I >>> know, David and I agreed on the final design, but interest in it fell >>> off. I ended up being the only person working on it. Since then, David >>> has included the security redesign in his new project. >> >> I tought there were some stumbling blocks, notably when merging your >> works. > > We only disagreed on the workflow. David wanted to commit all the > changes at once and I wanted to commit them a little at a time. Completely brand new code that doesn't touch anything else *at all* can be committed as a single large chunk. But if you need to alter a bunch of other stuff scattered all over, separate commits are better. It makes it easier to verify correctness, and helps in 4 years when you are trying to figure out why something is broken. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
No, we did not agree on the final design and the security stuff in Moqui is VERY different from what you implemented. In fact, I'd go so far to say that they have little in common, though they do share some of the same concepts (externalized references to artifacts, for example). One major difference, for example, is inheritance of permission determined at run-time based on how artifacts refer to each other instead of where the artifacts are located (which IMO, as I've expressed before, has little use). -David On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > This description of events isn't entirely true. > > David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt excluded from the design process. David simply asked that we discuss the design before code was committed. > > The security redesign was the outcome of that discussion. As far as I know, David and I agreed on the final design, but interest in it fell off. I ended up being the only person working on it. Since then, David has included the security redesign in his new project. > > -Adrian > > On 9/16/2010 12:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> A 1st step would be to show a POC attached to Jira issue; explanation in >> comment, sufficient snippet of code to understand in patch. When I work >> on such I try to use the Example component to avoid any bad side >> effects; ie Example is a kind of sandbox, nobody will jump to your >> throat if you make a little mistake. Anyway you would not be the 1st >> responsible, as a commiter would have to review and commit before it get >> into core. >> >> In one word, show us the case. >> >> It's also good to know that 1st Andrew (Zeneski) tried something on this >> (authentication et especially authorization), David "rejected" it, then >> Adrian and David tried to work together but finally did not agree. So >> there is still an executioncontext branch but it seems almost dead. I'm >> maybe not totally right about this, but at least it's how I see it. >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>> How can i help on this? >>> >>> - james >>> >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>> Looks more like a revolution IMO (ie a branch ;), want to be involved? >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>> Thanks for looking. Moving to Apache Shiro should be an evolution .... >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "james_sg" <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> Anyone look at Apache Shiro for OFBiz? I have used it in one of my >>>>>>> project >>>>>>> and am happy with it. Seems a nice fit for OFBiz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -james >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone wanting to give the security redesign a try is welcome to do >>>>>>>> so. >>>>>>>> The Example component is converted over to the new security design, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> the rest of the applications still use the old-style security. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One of the goals of the redesign was to have it work along side the >>>>>>>> old-style security - so OFBiz users can migrate over to the new >>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>> when time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> a big impact on existing installations isn't true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html >>>>> >>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2541484.html >>> >>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |