David Blevins wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Rick McGuire wrote:
After spending a good year+ dealing with issues involving CorbaBean,
CSSBean, and TSSBean I've come to the realization that part of the
problem with understanding how these work is the names are
misleading...particularly CSSBean and TSSBean.
TSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Target Security Service". While
some aspects of its configuration involve defining transport level
security, this bean is really a proxy that manages a POA instance
for exposing an EJB container as a CORBA object. The TSSBean name
somehow obscures the fact that there is a TSSBean instance for every
exported EJB. CorbaObjectProxy or EjbPoaProxy might be better names.
CSSBean calls itself the "CORBA Client Security Server". Similar
problem with TSSBean. Security is only one aspect of this
bean....and it's not really a "Server". CorbaClientObject might
make it a little clearer what's being configured.
CorbaBean is not too bad, but it seems to imply a global CORBA
configuration rather than configuring a single ORB instance.
CorbaServerOrb would capture the essential server-side ORB nature of
this.
Rick
For the curious, the acronyms come from the CORBA Security spec
CSIv2. This spec outlines how the client side code, CSS, sets up the
security context with the server side code, TSS; the security context
includes the transport level security, as you had mentioned as well
as the shared security context creation and what security information
gets generated inside the IOR for the objects. The sole purpose of
these two beans is to set up these security contexts as specified
under CSIv2, IIRC.
With that said, I don't think that we should obfuscate their CSIv2
roots but, I am not married to those particular names. Just my
personal preference that you must take with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the javadoc, Alan :)
Hey Rick, if you could submit a small "javadoc" patch with this info
in it, that be great.
These are my sins. I shall document them.
Regards,
Alan
