2013/12/11 Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...For "hiding" resources I would really prefer hooking into the > ResourceResolverImpl and make that > > be aware of FeatureFlags itself. (I seem to repeat myself here, but I > seem to have a strong > > position on that :-) )... > > I reread your original post in this thread and I'm not fully convinced > one way or the other. > > Making the ResourceResolver aware of feature flags directly seems to > be too much coupling. > > Using ResourceAccessSecurity feels too granular - with feature flags > we want to completely hide a resource, we don't care if it's for > reading, writing or anything else - it just virtually stops existing. > With ResourceAccessSecurity you need to implement too many methods to > express that. > > Maybe a ResourceAccessVeto service, with a single vetoResourceAccess() > method? >
Yepp, thanks that was actually my initial idea (though I didn't bring it across...) - we define this extra service for flags, but implementation wise this is wrapped by a resource access gate to avoid complicating the implementation Carsten > > -Bertrand > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
