[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13288130#comment-13288130
]
Rob Godfrey commented on QPID-3997:
-----------------------------------
Changes look good... Not sure I really like the method name
getAuthenticationManagerFor (the For seems redundant), but not a deal breaker.
The mockito based unit tests are certainly cleaner, but I presume that we are
no longer testing that the config does what we think it does (i.e. there is no
testing of the config parsing part of the original change). Given the upcoming
changes to config I don't think this is a blocker - it seems redundant to be
adding unit tests for code that we are about to throw away and replace with
something completely different where the tests are unlikely to be able to be
reusable.
> [Java Broker] Allow assignment of AuthenticationManager on a per-port basis
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-3997
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3997
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Rob Godfrey
> Assignee: Rob Godfrey
>
> Currently we only allow for a single AuthenticationManager across all ports.
> We should allow for separate ports to allow for different authentication
> schemes. Ideally we should also allow for different vhosts to be bound to
> different ports and for different SASL mechanisms to be bound to different
> authentication managers, but these steps should be covered by later JIRAs.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
