Il giorno 17/gen/2013, alle ore 17.09, Christian Schneider ha scritto: > On 17.01.2013 14:43, Fabio Martelli wrote: >> Il giorno 17/gen/2013, alle ore 14.03, Jan Bernhardt ha scritto: >> >>> Hi Syncoper, >>> >>> The following changes are proposed regarding AuthenticationController: >>> >>> === Renaming Service === >>> Rename AuthenticationController to EntitlementService(Impl), since >>> containing methods have little to nothing to do with authentication. It is >>> only about Entitlements... >> Why not AuthorizationController or AccessController? I'd prefer the first >> one. >> May be this controller will be improved to add access controller features >> int the next future (please, take a look at the roadmap). > I agree with the names Fabio proposed. If it is planned to put more > Authorization stuff in there then it makes sense to not have Entitlement > in the name. > Like Andrei proposed we should either rename all controllers to Service > or none. If we rename them partly people will be confused. > >>> === Changing response Type === >>> listEntitlements() returns a List<String> whereas getEntitlements() returns >>> a Set<String>. >>> >>> From my point of view both methods should return a SET since entitlements >>> have no order and cannot exists or be assigned more than once. >> Agree > I also agree with Set. >> >>> Due to some JAX-B / JAX-RS limitations, it is not possible to return a >>> collection with primitive data types in java. A wrapper class is required, >>> e.g. Set<EntitlementTO>. >>> >>> EntitlementTO can be modeled in one of two ways: >>> >>> Option 1: >>> <EntitlementTOs> >>> <EntitlementTO>ROLE_ADMIN</EntitlementTO> >>> <EntitlementTO>ROLE_SUPERUSER</EntitlementTO> >>> </EntitlementTOs> >>> >>> Option 2: >>> <EntitlementTOs> >>> <EntitlementTO> >>> <name>ROLE_ADMIN</name> >>> </EntitlementTO> >>> <EntitlementTO> >>> <name> ROLE_SUPERUSER </name> >>> </EntitlementTO> >>> </EntitlementTOs> >>> >>> Option 1 matches more or less current marshaling. I personally would prefer >>> Option 2 because this would give us the opportunity to easily extend >>> EntitlementTO at a later point (if needed) without becoming incompatible >>> with previous version. >> Agree with you for the reason given above. > Not sure about this one as I do not know how probable it is that we have > more attributes in Entitlement.
May be a rule or a validity date or something like this. I'll keep the possibility to extend EntitlementTO. > Btw. I would rather name the xml element Entitlement than EntitlementTO > as the fact that it is a transfer object is not important on the xml level. > > Christian > >> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> All of these changes will not apply to current Spring Controller/Services, >>> but only future CXF REST Service. So AuthenticationController will not be >>> renamed now, and responsetype of AuthenticationController will not change. >>> Changes only apply for new Service Interface and (Proxy) Implementation. >> Good. >> >> Regards, >> F. >> >
