I had a look at the past discussions about security and found this suggestions from Bertrand
"It might be useful to agree on the overall Stanbol security model in a wiki or website page before digging into the details." from [1] I still see a lack of consensus about the Stanbol security model. At least different people seem to have different views. We should solve this first. Maybe this also solves the default behavior problem. [1] http://markmail.org/message/yamwhcla3b2j4onj 2012/11/28 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Fabian Christ < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > 2012/11/28 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> > > > > > Even the stable launcher starts with many > > > optional components. > > > > > > > Maybe we should look at launchers not as a defined product. The launchers > > we have are just for testing and do not reflect any default or standard. > > > > I would expect people to create their own launchers for their specific > > needs and use cases. > > > I fully agree. My suggestion is that if somebody decides to have security > as part of their launcher they should not have to additionally enable it. > The full launcher is there that developers can see if their component work > together well with all the others (this includes security). > > Cheers, > Reto > -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
