Sorry Walden. That was meant as a joke really, as well as do exactly
what was expected - grab your attention by seeing a "Walden
hates..." :) . Call it advertising of my message :). I didn't meant
for you to actually hate something. Reading your messages I did gather
you were talking about the right design and how developers in general
aren't aware of this. I did want to state up front though that the
reason I might not be able to use the approach for those mentioned
above. However, I still would be interested to know on how to
implement this so that I can be aware for future work. Again, sorry,
if I came across as rude.

Any ideas on the original question though?

Suri

On Oct 23, 8:15 am, walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow.  I'm reading through the messages and out of nowhere I suddenly
> see "Walden hates....".
>
> Allow me to clarify.  I don't "hate" anything you're doing in your
> project.  It's not my problem.  I have observed mucho complexity in
> the discussions here on how to do basic security stuff, and I think
> I've observed that most people are like you: they have somehow been
> weaned directly to the conventional but non-standard approach to web
> security, without even knowing what the standard is or that it
> exists.  That seems a little out-of-kilter to me.  It's as if I saw
> someone in the supermarket trying to hold a dozen or more items in
> their arms, unaware that there are shopping carts and baskets
> ''designed for the purpose''.
>
> Sometimes a paradigm shift makes sense; sometimes it don't [sic].
> Your project: you decide.
>
> Walden
>
> On Oct 22, 10:03 pm, Suri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> > The Struts 1.1 app that I already have running currently validates a
> > user's information from the session and based on that view/modify
> > privileges are determined. Since now I'm trying to implement a GWT
> > module within this application, I'd ideally like for the GWT code to
> > be able to somehow call the already existing session data and the
> > validation logic available in the Struts application (the logic has
> > been set as part of the main Action class that is the parent for all
> > Actions) .
>
> > 1) I see that using the getLocalThreadRequest() I could obtain the
> > HttpServletRequest. So using this, can I get the session information
> > (User object) and ultimately call upon the action (simply create an
> > instance to call upon the action class) and pass the session
> > information for validation?
>
> > 2) I also saw that the processCall can be overridden and I saw some
> > people trying to create a way to be able to have the
> > RemoteServiceServlet act as a by-way for the request to reach the
> > custom framework. Would this be a better way overall to try to
> > maintain the framework of the Struts application? If so, would this be
> > similar to (1) where I create an instance of an action and call the
> > method by passing the request,response arguments? or is there a more
> > elegant way of doing what I want to do? So, this way the rest of my
> > logic could go into the Action as well keeping the framework intact
> > while the RemoteServiceServlet really acts as a bridge between teh GWT
> > UI and the Struts framework.
>
> > Thanks for any information. From the reading I have gathered that
> > Walden hates what I'm trying to do and would possibly suggest HTTP
> > digest as an approach at some point :). I'd have to say
> > 1) i have no clue about the method, ashamed to say it but true.
> > 2) It probably would be deviating from the way my application
> > currently validates and what I'm trying to do is make that
> > consistent.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to