From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]>
We could. It would be an easy change to make. I would like to think about it for a while. Maybe even hear from others on the
subject.
For me it's not a problem using && or || instead of AND or OR. We are all acquainted to this and this will be used only by devs. But
if at some point it's easy to do, why not, yes!
I've been trying to move the project in the other direction - get the OFBiz-specific syntax out of the expressions. From my
perspective, the less we mess around with syntax extensions, the fewer bugs we will encounter.
+1
A good example is the problems encountered and the work required to support auto-vivify. In that case, it was worth working on
because that is a very powerful and needful extension.
I'm even hesitant about making this permission extension. I would rather see the security component handle permission expressions,
but that would require a lot of coding.
I'd wait to have the new stuff in place and used/tested some weeks before playing with this. I mean commits, of course playing
locally should not be a problem.
My 2cts
Jacques
-Adrian
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I know this, but couldn't we replace them before calling the UEL processor?
Jacopo
On Apr 30, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Those keywords are not recognized by UEL.
-Adrian
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian,
this is really interesting.
However I think it is time to start thinking to define our own xml friendly keywords for && and || operators; I would like to
express that statement with something like this:
<set field="hasPermission" value="${(hasPermission['update:context1'] OR hasPermission['update:context2']) AND
hasPermission['update:context3']}" type="Boolean"/>
Jacopo
On Apr 30, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
<set field="hasPermission" value="${(hasPermission['update:context1'] || hasPermission['update:context2']) &&
hasPermission['update:context3']}" type="Boolean"/>
or something like that. I'm still working out the details.
-Adrian
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
That sounds cool. I'm not sure what that would really look like, but nevertheless sounds really cool! :) If you need anything
from me let me know...
Andrew
On Apr 30, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
I'd be happy to discuss additional changes as well (which aren't yet documented) like adding support to check multiple
permissions at once, returning a Map of results from that permission check. So, if you or anyone else has a wish list for
security, let me know so I can get it all incorporated at the same time.
Btw, I'm working on adding an extension to the UEL that will allow permission
expressions.
-Adrian
