Scott M Stark wrote: > This is the crux of this issue. Some interceptors are stateful and are tied > to the type of container they are being used with. The EJB security > model is completely different than the Web security model. All the security > related interceptors due is translate from the container specific model to > the > generic JAAS implmentation in fact.
That is beside the point. If I have an MBean *wanting* the EJB security model, I'd like to be able to invoke it using the EJB interceptor, without the interceptor complaining about it. It shouldn't care what the end destination is, as long as the container can provide the right meta-data. > I can force a container independent model on the interceptors that show up > at the top-level, but internally, the security interceptor is going to have > to > determine how to enforce the container specific view. > > Its fine to support sharing of stateless interceptors, but to say this is > the only > way interceptors should be handled forces a refactoring of exising usage > without sufficient justification. That is your opinion :-) /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
