In the design I proposed, the configuration resides in the artifacts
themselves.
-Adrian
Harmeet Bedi wrote:
If goal is to change security without changing code or XML configuration.. the
configuration has to reside somewhere. db seemed like a spot.
UI would needs to show the artifacts and permission and configure groups on
them.
I had SecurityPermission entity extended to have SecurityResource(Artifact) and
SecurityActionType(e.g. access)
If the issue is that should there be no static check and collect resources to
seed db, instead to it dynamically it would be fine. It would make things
dynamic and configuration friendly while still taking config out of xml.
Harmeet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Crum" <adri...@hlmksw.com>
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:41:57 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Domain Based Security ( was re: Authz...)
Harmeet Bedi wrote:
Ofbiz has the graph metadata of artifacts but navigating graph to
dynamically determine will be expensive.
It doesn't have to be. If we end up using the artifact info stuff for
some kind of security administration screen, we can set up the artifact
gathering code to go only as deep as what is currently being displayed.
In other words, the artifact gathering could be more dynamic. As the
user navigates farther down the graph, additional parsing is done.
This would eliminate the need to graph all artifacts in one step.
I agree with David that storing the graph in the database is a bad idea.
-Adrian
