Re: cvs commit: jakarta-jetspeed/src/java/org/apache/jetspeed/portal/security/portletsPortletWrapper.java

[Santiago Gala]

David Sean Taylor wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 08:10  AM, Santiago Gala wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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.

That sounds like an over-reaction.
Please don't remove the security wrappers. That would break countless  
applications.
I hope you are speaking out of frustration.
Rename the package if it makes you happy, I don't care.

I was not planning to remove them. Yes, possibly I'm overreacting. No, I 
don't think it makes sense to rename the package.


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.


They are not a barrier. You can change the security classes just as  
easily as the API.
Yes, but no "consumer" of the class will be allowed to access public 
methods in subclasses by casting. This was heavily abused, and was 
spoiling the code more and more. In this sense they have acted as barriers.

As for the Jetspeed Portlet API, do we even want to bother discussing  
it at this point?

Not tha API itself, but I would like to have Jetspeed code base ready 
for migration (and understand dependencies) for when the API is released 
and discussions begin.

That also is motivating my "clean unused imports" campaign ;-)

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=jetspeed- 
[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.

You can't just remove the security feature from Jetspeed.
Paul and I worked very hard on putting in declarative security into  
Jetspeed, and decoupling Jetspeed security from Turbine.  Programmers  
I know you worked very hard into this. I will not remove anything. Sorry 
if I sounded like I would.

have complete access to the security API, the full source code. In  
short they can do whatever they please. Once Jetspeed has a clean  
separation between container and portal engine, these issues will  
become more important.

Since the method is called with such a common name, I'm not able to  
find where it is being used. Could anybody clarify?


In reviewing the commits, I can't find the cast problem I was having.
It must have been in some client code.
I know it was very important, or I wouldn't have committed it.
My vote is remove the method, and I will have to leave it in for my  
project.
It will make extra work for me, but Im used to that when working with  
Jetspeed.
I don't have to worry about third party portlet programmers breaking  
into security in my applications.

I will try to remove it in my copy, and see if something breaks. After 
this, I will warn and commit the change.

Regards,
     Santiago

--
David Sean Taylor
Bluesunrise Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+01 707 773-4646


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]