at it...
Jacques
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2720124.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-apacheshiro/ and did not
see anything clear about authorization but I think it's
worth looking at it...
Jacques
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2720124.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones d...@me.com wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This description of events isn't entirely
true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the
--- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones d...@me.com wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This description of events isn't entirely
true.
David
Adrian
I learned the word goad from your previous message The truth is, I'm not trying to attack you or goad you. Look like you are
reusing it again :o)
But finally should we not consider Apache Shiro and get over all this? For now I only read
David E Jones wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
Completely brand new code that doesn't touch anything else *at all* can be
committed as a single large chunk. But if you need to alter a bunch of
other stuff scattered all over, separate commits are better. It makes it
On 9/17/2010 12:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Adrian
I learned the word goad from your previous message The truth is, I'm
not trying to attack you or goad you. Look like you are reusing it
again :o)
Good point. My last reply could be considered an attack. My apologies to
David.
-Adrian
, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't started
any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;)
).
-David
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
Please don't attack me Adrian, I didn't attack you. This is entertaining
though, isn't it? I especially like how in your message full of attacks message
you ask for no more of the same. I reread my message below and I don't see any
personal attack to you. So, where is this drama coming from?
On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones d...@me.com wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This
On 9/17/2010 9:18 AM, David E Jones wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've asked this before, but could you please stop using my name
to try to add legitimacy to your ideas? Just leave me out of it. It's that
simple.
Jacques was the one who brought up your name, and it had nothing to do
with adding
On 09/17/2010 11:18 AM, David E Jones wrote:
BTW, I don't think it's only you by any means. In general collaboration seems
to have mostly broken down in the project. There are lots of people still
committing to the same code repository, but not many instances any more of
people discussing
would
have
a big impact on existing installations isn't true.
-Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz
about this, but at
least it's how I see it.
Thanks
Jacques
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2541915.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
isn't true.
-Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor
/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2541484.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This description of events isn't entirely true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt
excluded from the design process. David simply asked that we discuss
the design before code was
On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This description of events isn't entirely true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt
excluded from the design process. David simply asked
have
a big impact on existing installations isn't true.
-Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This description of events isn't entirely true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt
excluded from the design process. David
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
This description of events isn't entirely true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the community in general felt
exercise so far and I haven't started
any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;)
).
-David
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
--
View this message
in a forum post. Of
course, Moqui is also just a design exercise so far and I haven't started
any implementation (not that I haven't been itching to for a while... ;)
).
-David
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor
.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
on existing installations isn't true.
-Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
time and resources permit. The notion that the redesign would
have
a big impact on existing installations isn't true.
-Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Security-refactor-tp2537069p2540207.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive
Nothing is going on with it right now. There was little interest in it,
so it died.
-Adrian
On 9/13/2010 1:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
RIP :o)
Jacques
From: Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com
Nothing is going on with it right now. There was little interest in it,
so it died.
-Adrian
On 9/13/2010 1:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
to for a
while... ;) ).
-David
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
so far and I haven't started any implementation (not that I
haven't been itching to for a while... ;) ).
-David
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
Just curious, what is going on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
--
Ofbiz on twitter: http
on finally with Security refactor?
Jacques
--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
applications handle authorization. Just my two cents.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595
On Jun 20, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
From: David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Discussion: OFBiz Security Refactor
To: dev
I don't agree that attempting to control OFBiz user permissions through
a management application is useless. There are a number of programs here
where I work that integrate well with NDS and allow me to control them
through a single management console.
I can't imagine being in a large
On Jun 20, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I don't agree that attempting to control OFBiz user permissions
through a management application is useless. There are a number of
programs here where I work that integrate well with NDS and allow me
to control them through a single
From: David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Discussion: OFBiz Security Refactor
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008, 2:42 PM
On Jun 20, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I don't agree that attempting to control OFBiz
user permissions
through a management
It looks like we finally have a decent implementation for authenticating
users using LDAP - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-811. This
will allow OFBiz installations to share user names and passwords with
the network.
I would like to expand it further so that OFBiz user permissions
Authentation? Authoration?
I think authentation is ok.
BTW, as the topic is on securtiy, I would suggest to consider adding
some implements to offer the ability to control read/write of entity
fields.
Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
在 2008-06-19四的 10:54 -0700，Adrian Crum写道：
It looks like we
Shi Yusen wrote:
BTW, as the topic is on securtiy, I would suggest to consider adding
some implements to offer the ability to control read/write of entity
fields.
That is usually handled by the presentation layer or in the service engine.
-Adrian
Adrian,
This is good timing for me as I need to implement a security scheme in which
a user's ability to perform CRUD operations is dependent on their level
within an organization (ie. someone is a divisional supervisor so they can
only modify records within their division and its departments).
All,
I would like to bring in this discussion the framework/applications relation
and dependence.
With this I mean that, since we are going to release the framework by
itself, I guess the party will not included in it. On the other hand the
security is implemented in the framework.
So I ask, is it
Al,
How each network OS organizes LDAP objects and implements access to
those objects varies. I can only tell you how it works in NDS - I
haven't worked with Active Directory. I'll describe how NDS does things
and how I see OFBiz fitting in.
All network resources are objects. These include
Adrian,
This really helps. I am starting to see what the api for the integrated
permission utility would be. Trustee relationship is the word for the
relationship between objects (in my case, content records) and party with
permissions. In the NDS scheme can trustee groups be hierarchically
Yes, the whole directory is arranged as a tree - which is an LDAP thing,
not an NDS thing.
By the way, groups in NDS would be similar to Domains in Active Directory.
Also keep in mind that I'm not proposing that we change how the current
permissions checking behaves. I'm only proposing a
I've had this discussion probably nearly 100 times with different
clients and different people, and been involved in over a dozen
different LDAP and SSO implementation. Based on that and reading this
a few things come to mind:
1. only put in LDAP what other applications can share, since
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've had this discussion probably nearly 100 times with different
clients and different people, and been involved in over a dozen
different LDAP and SSO implementation. Based on that and reading this
a few things come to mind:
1.
Adrian,
I guess you mean unified authentation and unified authoration. In
pratice, unified authoration is useless.
Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
在 2008-06-19四的 19:53 -0700，Adrian Crum写道：
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've had this discussion probably nearly 100
I'm not sure if this is what you mean Shi, but I think we're on the
same page with the problem with this: different applications tend to
have different permission sets, business processes that pass through
the applications, different ways of organizing and interpreting
permissions, and
Thank you David! My English is not good enough to express what I'm
thinking precisely. :)
Yes, different ways of organizing and interpreting permissions.
Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
在 2008-06-19四的 22:30 -0600，David E Jones写道：
I'm not sure if this is what you mean Shi, but I think we're on
49 matches
Mail list logo
