I was thinking to use another generic security check based on a naming
convention (e.g. a security service with entity name and something).
Jacopo
On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> What permission checks would be performed?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> On 3/7/2012 2:53 PM, Jacopo Cappell
Interesting, but this sounds a bit dangerous to me.
How about a Utility that lets you check if an Entity exists at
all...instead of throwing nasty errors. Or am I still back in the dark
ages and this already exists in the trunk?
Thanks much for you attention to this.
Best Regards,
Ruth Hoffma
What permission checks would be performed?
-Adrian
On 3/7/2012 2:53 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I am resurrecting the initial thread when the "entity-auto" engine was implemented; this
is a great addition but we could even push it at a further level (again following the
"configuration by ex
I am resurrecting the initial thread when the "entity-auto" engine was
implemented; this is a great addition but we could even push it at a further
level (again following the "configuration by exception" strategy):
why don't we make it optional the service definition for crud services?
The idea i
"
feature.
thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/The-fancy-new-entity-auto-service-execution-engine-tp18674040p21190727.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
For those who didn't catch this on the commit list...
In SVN revs 679058, 679288, 679301 I committed a few changes to make
it easier/faster to implement common CrUD (Create, Update, and Delete)
services. The basic patterns are demonstrated in the services.xml file
in the example component,
