On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 22:41 Europe/Rome, Christian Haul wrote:
I know, actions are not liked by everyone, but this is one of the best applications for them.
are you suggesting we don't think about adding interception in flow because otherwise this would kill the only place where actions have a reason to exist?
So, please provide a more convincing use case for the introduction of AOP in Cocoon ;-)
Yawn... ;-)
I still believe authentication code should be orthogonal to actual application logic, and rather be defined by the container. In this discussion, I think 'sitemap' == 'container'. Also, since authentication-requiring realms are a part of the overall URI namespace, when finding out which parts need authentication, I would check first with the container (web.xml) -> sitemap.xmap -> flowscript.
Not making authentication handling part of your application is one of the first things I learned over here, when greeting Giacomo at ApacheCon in London.
So, if you guys are talking about authentication with actions vs flowscript & interceptors, what are you talking about: doing the authentication, or checking authorization?
I'm curious and want to understand better.
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
