Dave, I've committed all of my changes including a base auto-provision feature.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=438595 Matt, I have one thing left to fix. In auto-provision mode, if a user has authenticated via SSO (LDAP), the only role they have is "register", so they can access the New Registration page. So, in RollerSession is UserData is null, I call AutoProvisionHelper to try to register the user. It works great, except that Acegi Security still believes the Authentication only has roles "register" and not "editor,[admin]". I see in SecurityContextHolder you can set Authentication, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Any suggestions? -Elias Dave Johnson wrote: > I'm going to run though an install or two today with the new distro > layout, update the install guide and next try to get a release > candidate ready. > > Allen: anything else you want to wrap up before RC? > > Elias: what's the ETA on your SSO mods? > > - Dave > > > > On 8/30/06, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I like "apache-roller" >> >> - Dave >> >> >> >> On 8/29/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > k ... this has been checked into the roller_3.0 branch now. >> > >> > i shuffled around a number of things, so let me know if anything >> appears >> > to be broken. >> > >> > one question that came up is what we actually want to name the final >> > release bundle. namely, should the release contain "apache-" in front >> > of it, which is how it works now, or is that not really necessary >> and it >> > should just start as "roller-"? doesn't really matter to me, just >> makes >> > the file paths a bit longer is all. this is what we have now ... >> > >> > apache-roller-$version >> > apache-roller-src-$version >> > >> > -- Allen >> > >> > >> > Allen Gilliland wrote: >> > > I think everyone agreed on this so I'm going to move forward with >> > > implementing it for the 3.0 release. >> > > >> > > Does anyone care if I rename a few of the ant tasks along the way, >> > > namely things like "build-beans" -> "build-business" and other cases >> > > where I think the naming could be a bit more intuitive? >> > > >> > > -- Allen >> > > >> > > >> > > Anil Gangolli wrote: >> > >> >> > >> That works. I think that means basically separating the source and >> > >> "binary" distributions. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland" >> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> To: <[email protected]> >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 AM >> > >> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> Good point. comments inline ... >> > >>> >> > >>> Anil Gangolli wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Allen, I already voted +1, but I just noticed sources being >> combined >> > >>>> in, and I had a couple of comments/questions. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (1) You might want to consider calling the top of the source tree >> > >>>> something other than "src", maybe "sources" because I think we >> > >>>> expect it to look like the top of the roller source tree does >> in SVN >> > >>>> which itself contains several directories and files (e.g. "web", >> > >>>> "tools", build.xml) as well as the actual "src" directory below >> it. >> > >>> >> > >>> yes, that definitely makes sense. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (2) I hope there will be a source distribution that does not >> include >> > >>>> the binary(?) >> > >>> >> > >>> what's the standard here? i don't usually download the source >> > >>> distribution so i'm not sure what most people do, but it makes >> sense >> > >>> to me that downloading the source means you don't get a binary. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> (3) Do we plan to include the (distributable) libraries that are >> > >>>> under the "tools" in such combined packages? >> > >>> >> > >>> seems like the best thing to do may be to remove the "webapp" >> > >>> directory and include a "sources" directory in the source >> > >>> distribution. in that case the "sources" directory would contain >> > >>> everything needed to build the war, including libs. >> > >>> >> > >>> would that work? >> > >>> >> > >>> -- Allen >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> --a. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Johnson" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >>>> To: <[email protected]> >> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:09 AM >> > >>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: New distribution layout >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> +1 >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> On 8/16/06, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >>>>>> +1 >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote: >> > >>>>>> > we talked about this a while back and I've just now got >> around to >> > >>>>>> > pulling this into an actual proposal ... >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >> http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_DistributionLayout >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > nothing fancy right now, basically just setting up the >> > >>>>>> distribution > so >> > >>>>>> > that the download isn't just the webapp. >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > -- Allen >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >
