taylor 2002/09/17 08:44:00
Modified: src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/portlets
PortletWrapper.java
Log:
Added method to get around cast firewall.
Plan to convert this code to properly use Java Proxies.
Revision Changes Path
1.13 +7 -2 jakarta-jetspeed/src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/portlets/PortletWrapper.java
Index: PortletWrapper.java
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-jetspeed/src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/portlets/PortletWrapper.java,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -r1.12 -r1.13
--- PortletWrapper.java 3 Sep 2002 15:02:13 -0000 1.12
+++ PortletWrapper.java 17 Sep 2002 15:44:00 -0000 1.13
@@ -439,5 +439,10 @@
public boolean providesCustomization()
{
return wrappedPortlet.providesCustomization();
- } + } +
+ public Portlet getPortlet()
+ {
+ return wrappedPortlet;
+ } }
I was reviewing the differences between the security code I have hanging for Jetspeed 1.3b3 and the current one, and I found this commit. It completely defeats the facade purpose, which is authorization.
If it is really needed, we could as well completely remove these classes from the system, or at least move them under a different package "security" is a misnomer.
I introduced these classes with two purposes:
* make clear where the authorization code would be in the system and ensure that no code out of the core system could fake authorization.
* even more important, have opaque facades for the third party portlets. This helps cleaning contracts between portlets and the container. It "enforces the Portlet API". If a method is discovered to be missing from the scheme, we can add it (both in the base interface and here). So, the wrappers would act as "barriers" against API pollution.
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=99099
was one of the last messages before I stopped tracking HEAD. There I expressed my concerns about using transparent proxies, since they defeated the authorization feature. I would rather remove the Interceptor than having it opened, since it gives a faux feeling of security.
Since the method is called with such a common name, I'm not able to find where it is being used. Could anybody clarify?
Regards,
Santiago--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
