[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-615?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12464000
]
Andrew Zeneski commented on OFBIZ-615:
--
Here are the specs for WorkEffort Permissions, if possible it would be
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12463811
]
Andrew Zeneski commented on OFBIZ-609:
--
I created sub-tasks for both of these. Thank you very much! Comment
Type: Sub-task
Components: workeffort
Reporter: Andrew Zeneski
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-616?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski updated OFBIZ-616:
-
Component/s: accounting
> Re-Factor Account permissions to follow new patte
: Sub-task
Components: accounting
Reporter: Andrew Zeneski
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-615?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski updated OFBIZ-615:
-
Component/s: workeffort
> Re-Factor WorkEffort permissions to follow new patte
neric permissions. But now I realize this isn't practical.
Andrew
On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:31 PM, David E Jones wrote:
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Yes, however the example uses the built in permission checking in
the simple methods which in turn uses the Security
I'm not too sure about combining all styles into one css file.
Cleaning them up surely would be a good thing, but tabstyles.css was
designed to handle the tab sections of screens. Only needed to be
included in screens which use the top level tabs.
Keeping this separate IMO would make changi
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-605?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12463657
]
Andrew Zeneski commented on OFBIZ-605:
--
Is this really what we want to do? Isn't having smaller CSS file
be nice to remove before the release however, but this is just
my opinion.
Andrew
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
Because of the size of the change, would it be wise
not to commit the changes until after the release?
(just questioning, not providing an opinion either
way)
--- Andr
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Comments inline:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
The major basic tasks at hand are as follows:
1) change the use of the required-permissions element in service
definitions to use the infrastructure (61 instances).
2) move the permission checking from
Now that the new service based permission framework is in place, it
would be nice to get a community effort going to help clean up some
of the code & views to utilize this new infrastructure. I'm calling
out to the community to see if there are any interested parties...
The major basic task
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski updated OFBIZ-611:
-
Description: The content manager permission scheme should be migrated to
use the new
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski updated OFBIZ-611:
-
Component/s: content
Affects Version/s: SVN trunk
> Re-Factor Content permissions
: Sub-task
Components: content
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Reporter: Andrew Zeneski
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
ct: Apache OFBiz (The Open for Business Project)
Issue Type: Sub-task
Components: accounting, framework, order, party, product
Reporter: Andrew Zeneski
Assigned To: Andrew Zeneski
There are currently 61 instances of service definitions which use the now
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski updated OFBIZ-609:
-
Component/s: workeffort
product
pos
party
: SVN trunk
Reporter: Andrew Zeneski
Assigned To: Andrew Zeneski
With the implementation of the new service based permission infrastructure, we
now can apply better permission handling to core logic and views within OFBiz.
This issue is a top level task in which sub-tasks shall
wrote:
Looks good Andy, and there's even an example of how to use it!
-David
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Based on the discussions from this thread as well as some offline
discussions, the new service based permission checking is checked in.
Examples of usi
.
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
I agree, I think this is nice. I thought you were talking about
Java Objects however, so indeed I think the service model will
still fit this just fine.
Andrew
On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Adrian,
Where do you see the need
I agree, I think this is nice. I thought you were talking about Java
Objects however, so indeed I think the service model will still fit
this just fine.
Andrew
On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Adrian,
Where do you see the need for an Object? So far
Maybe adding:
To the service ECAs to trigger events based on permission would add
an additional layer of security when triggering events. If we go with
the bypass route, this may be necessary.
Andrew
On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Yes Adrian I agree...
I am thinking
Do you foresee this causing new problems? :)
On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
It certainly solves the one I described! Thanks Andy!
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Yes Adrian I agree...
I am thinking about the same types of processes. The createParty
service for example is useless
Adrian,
Where do you see the need for an Object? So far what I have heard is
service based authentication and permissions will cover everything,
if you see otherwise please describe.
Andrew
On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
There are two main areas
rameter checking layer
Perform desired action layer (permissions ignorant)
David E Jones wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
CRUD services probably will not have permissions assigned, and
NEVER called directly from requests. Maybe we add a flag to
these
would take a lot of work, and like you said, much
more discussion.
So, what's next? Where do we go from here? Is there anything I
can do to help?
-Adrian
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
Adrian,
I took a look at this as well thinking this would be the ideal
place to
start. After looking at
en
Object A granted permission to modify Object B
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
It is my believe and I am sure there are others who agree, the
base permission scheme in OFBiz just doesn't cut it for
application specific security.
What I want to propose and make an initial decisi
t B
has modify-able permission in that context, then
Object A granted permission to modify Object B
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
It is my believe and I am sure there are others who agree, the
base permission scheme in OFBiz just doesn't cut it for
application specific security.
What I wan
small overhead for the service call but maybe
it is an acceptable cost to have. What do you think?
Please, consider that I just had a very cursory look at your work
and so this comment could be inappropriate... if so, just ignore it!
Jacopo
Andrew Zeneski wrote:
It is my believe and I am
It is my believe and I am sure there are others who agree, the base
permission scheme in OFBiz just doesn't cut it for application
specific security.
What I want to propose and make an initial decision on is a generic
schema for developing custom security implementations for specific
appl
Are comments no longer allowed in simple methods?
2007-01-05 13:11:16,462 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor4)
[UtilXml.java:658:ERROR] XmlFileLoader: File file:/Users/
jaz/Sandbox/apache-ofbiz/applications/order/script/org/ofbiz/order/
order/OrderServices.xml process error. Line: 824.
eat to follow the pattern used
elsewhere so that the parsing code still accepts the old element
name, which will obviously only work for the group definitions in
the service-group file as the "service" element name would conflict
in the services XML files.
-David
On Jan 5,
least for now) with the added
support to embed your group defs inside a service.
Andrew Zeneski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-589?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski reopened OFBIZ-589:
--
The updatePartyContent service should accept the actual content value and
update the content
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-589?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski resolved OFBIZ-589.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: SVN trunk
Patch applied to trunk.
> Party Cont
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-589?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Zeneski reassigned OFBIZ-589:
Assignee: Andrew Zeneski
> Party Content Admin Screens and Serv
I just uploaded the OFBiz logo to the confluence site. I thought it
would give us a little better branding. If anyone has any objections
to this, please let me know. Otherwise its there now for everyone to
see.
Andrew
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-540?page=comments#action_12457549 ]
Andrew Zeneski commented on OFBIZ-540:
--
What's the status on this patch? Is it ready for prime time or still in
progress?
> Services and
38 matches
Mail list logo
