Hi Tamás,

There should _always_ be a Subject.  A scheduled task or daemon process
should have a subject instance as well.

That is why the security world uses the term 'Subject' instead of 'User',
since 'User' generally implies a human being.  'Subject' is general in that
it encompasses any state/identity information, be it a human or daemon
process or whatever...

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi there,
> not directly related, but I have a question: all these solutions assume you
> already have a Subject.
>
> What about cases when it is not the case? (ie. scheduled tasks?)
>
> ~t~
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi JSecurity community,
>>
>> The JSecurity team will enable native support for the ability to assume
>> another user's identity at runtime, aka 'Run As' or 'Switch User'
>> functionality into the framework very soon.  This allows the application to
>> look, feel and react as if the current user is another user entirely, a
>> functionality that is quite common in many applications.
>>
>> We're looking to the community to get feedback on what people prefer this
>> be called in the API itself.  Odds are very high that the methods to perform
>> this switching capability will reside in the Subject interface (or a
>> sub-interface of Subject, we haven't decided yet).
>>
>> So, here are a few alphabetically-ordered options that seem to make sense
>> (don't forget a 'principal' is just an identifying attribute, like a
>> username or user id).  If you feel so inclined, please choose one:
>>
>> subject.assumeIdentity( Object principal );
>> subject.runAs( Object principal );
>> subject.switchUser( Object principal );
>>
>> Please note that whatever the naming choice, the implementation will
>> retain raw traceability and auditing attributed to the original or 'owning'
>> user in all cases.  You won't 'lose' that when executing this
>> soon-to-be-created method.
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback!
>>
>> Les
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> ~t~
>

Reply via email to