+1 for a thin integration layer for third party based on CDI mechanisms.
+1 for default implementation.
I'd suggest Shiro or ESAPI.
ESAPI[1] doesn't seem to be very known, but it's an API that should be
considered since it's the API developed by OWASP[2] team, based on the
lines and concerns
by default implementation I meant a default integration.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:16 AM, José Rodolfo Freitas
joserodolfo.frei...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for a thin integration layer for third party based on CDI mechanisms.
+1 for default implementation.
I'd suggest Shiro or ESAPI.
ESAPI[1]
hi jose,
that isn't a discussion about a default implementation.
the suggestion is that we can agree on a default implementation if we
implement different approaches and for the other implementations we use cdi
alternatives. this concept allows to switch between the implementations.
in case of
ok, got it.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Gerhard Petracek
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
hi jose,
that isn't a discussion about a default implementation.
the suggestion is that we can agree on a default implementation if we
implement different approaches and for the other
On 30/01/12 18:57, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
hi @ all,
as discussed at [1] the current suggestion is to start with new modules
(esp. the jpa and the security module).
both will show that we will face very different approaches we need to
support. e.g. in case of the security module dan suggested
:15
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Gerhard Petracek
Betreff: Re: supporting different approaches,...
On 30/01/12 18:57, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
hi @ all,
as discussed at [1] the current suggestion is to start with new
modules (esp. the jpa and the security module).
both will show
hi shane,
that's a noble goal. however, i know a lot of users who will never use our
security implementation - only the api/spi to integrate with the other
modules of deltaspike (that's independent of what we are providing in
this area).
- -1 for only providing one way of doing things in this
Nachricht-
Von: Shane Bryzak [mailto:sbry...@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Januar 2012 13:15
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Gerhard Petracek
Betreff: Re: supporting different approaches,...
On 30/01/12 18:57, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
hi @ all,
as discussed at [1] the current
Hi Pete,
At least that sounds like that what I am thinking of ;-)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pm...@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Januar 2012 13:58
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Shane Bryzak
Betreff: Re: supporting different approaches,...
I think
Sorry, yes, I was to specific calling out Gerhard ;-)
On 30 Jan 2012, at 12:57, Pete Muir wrote:
I think we're suffering from a communication problem here, rather than a
different philosophy ;-)
What we are proposing is an API/SPI abstraction which delegates the actual
work to other
Yes, I certainly agree with the basic approach :-)
On 30 Jan 2012, at 13:09, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
yes - since i wrote:
the following part is just an example and is not a suggestion to
use/integrate the mentioned frameworks:
...
it's just about the basic topic how we support different
.
Cheers,
Arne
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pm...@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Januar 2012 14:13
An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Shane Bryzak
Betreff: Re: supporting different approaches,...
Yes, I certainly agree with the basic approach :-)
On 30 Jan
:31 PM
Subject: Re: AW: supporting different approaches,...
Oki all good points...
And all valid points...
And all pretty heavy points...
Means to ME that we should take a step back and think _really_ _hard_ before
going onti implementing something ;)
Serious, this is indeed
a.) doesn't work out).
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: AW: supporting different approaches,...
Oki all
crafted
minimal implementation.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Jason Porter lightguard...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: AW: supporting different approaches,...
T
; Mark Struberg
strub...@yahoo.de
Cc:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: AW: supporting different approaches,...
T hanks for getting us back on track Mark, I noticed that as I was reading
the thread :)
I'm at +1 for not having any default in DeltaSpike. I think
: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: AW: supporting different approaches,...
Oki all good points...
And all valid points...
And all pretty heavy points...
Means to ME that we should take a step back and think _really_ _hard_
before
going onti
17 matches
Mail list logo
