+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
add the impl. module of their choice (to an application) and it
gets activated automatically.
regards,
gerhard
2012/1/30 José Rodolfo Freitas joserodolfo.frei...@gmail.com
+1 for a thin integration layer for third party based on CDI mechanisms.
+1 for default implementation.
I'd
+1 @veto
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Dan Allen dan.j.al...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:55, Marius Bogoevici
marius.bogoev...@gmail.comwrote:
I suggested @Unmanaged (or even @NotManaged, or anything that refers to
class as a managed bean in the spirit of 3.1.1).
+1 rebase
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
It was only about
git pull --rebase
Which means that _your_ _own_ commits done in the meantime (and not pushed
upwards) will get rebased to the tip of HEAD.
If you don't do this, you will always get this
