Ben Alex wrote:
For the small minority of people who have chosen NOT to extend User
(which goes against our recommendations, but there are legitimate
scenarios such as having a domain object that already represents the
user), I don't think adding two methods to their implementation is
going to
Sergio Berna wrote:
I have added ExpirationDetails as a separate interface to keep backwards
compatibility with existing code that implementes UserDetails.
Hi Sergio
Good to see backward compatibility is a priority, particular in such a
sensitive (ie commonly-deployed and extended) area as
Dao
Scott McCrory wrote:
Ben,
Excellent, sounds like a well thought-out plan towards 1.0.
I'd recommend an "in-between" approach for the container adapters. I
agree that including lightly-used, non-portable modules in the main
distribution can lead to expectations that they be maintained as full
Ben,
Excellent, sounds like a well thought-out plan towards 1.0.
I'd recommend an "in-between" approach for the container adapters. I
agree that including lightly-used, non-portable modules in the main
distribution can lead to expectations that they be maintained as fully as the
core. Ho
Alex
Enviado el: jueves, 30 de diciembre de 2004 2:53
Para: acegisecurity-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: [Acegisecurity-developer] Roadmap towards Aceg Security official
1.0.0 release
Scott McCrory wrote:
>Ben,
> Just curious - what's your approach
Ben,
Finally I have jaas CredentialsExpiredException and
AccountExpiredException working under acegi security integrated in JBoss
container.
The modifications on acegi were quite simple.
First I have created 2 new Exceptions named:
net.sf.acegisecurity.AccountExpiredException
net.sf.acegisecuri
Scott McCrory wrote:
Ben,
Just curious - what's your approach towards an eventual 1.0 release? I
ask because technical managers, architecture review boards, etc. can
misinterpret sub-1.0 versions as unstable, whereas even Acegi 0.6 most
certainly is not!
Thanks in advance,
Scott
Versi
