I'm trying to use wicket-auth-roles for authentication and authorization,
but there are a few things I'm not quite understanding. I really like the
annotation base authorization, but the two provided roles (ADMIN and USER)
are nowhere near enough to cover our use cases. I'm sure that this is a
com
the project is really meant to be an example rather then something for you
to use directly in your project, so feel free to cannibalize whatever code
you want from it.
-igor
On 2/9/07, Matt Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to use wicket-auth-roles for authentication and authorizati
That's the conclusion finally came to as well. I've started working on
something of my own based on what I've learned from wicket-auth-roles. I was
just a little nervous working with my own custom created annotations as I've
never done that before. I've only been a consumer of annotations in the
p
Well, yes. ADMIN and USER are just string constants of no particular
significance. You can use any strings you want without changing the source
code.
Matt Welch wrote:
>
> I'm trying to use wicket-auth-roles for authentication and authorization,
> but there are a few things I'm not quite und
Well, yes(and I could certainly be making this harder than it really is) but
that doesn't seem to alleviate the issue with all of the classes in that use
the Roles class explicitly.
In any case, I took Igor's suggestion and used the great work in
wicket-auth-roles as a guide and created something
it's been a long time since i worked on this code, so i don't recall the
details that well. if there are specific things we could do to make
wicket-auth-roles more reusable right out of the box, i think we should
consider them... please feel free to file an RFE if you have a specific idea
of wha
i dont know if its worth doing this. the truth of the matter is that most
apps have very different authorization schemes. i think what you will end up
doing is creating something so generic it is convoluted, take a look at
acegi - they tried to do that. i think we are better off with a concise and
yeah. i hear ya and i agree in general. but if there i something simple
and straightforward we could do to make the existing code more broadly
applicable or extensible somehow, why not at least put in an RFE to consider
it?
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> i dont know if its worth doing this. the tr
From my perspective, what would be most useful would be some documentation
beyond the auth-roles example regarding implementing custom authentication
and authorization schemes. Now that I have some experience, perhaps I'll
take a stab at that myself, however I'm still completely new to Wicket, so
On 2/15/07, Matt Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From my perspective, what would be most useful would be some documentation
> beyond the auth-roles example regarding implementing custom authentication
> and authorization schemes. Now that I have some experience, perhaps I'll
> take a stab at th
Hi Matt,
I could chip in some assistance here if you wish.
So far I have been able to integrate this roles model with acegi, of course
I cannot share the code per se, but I could extract some basic examples of
how we approached it.
Be warned that it may not be the most elegant solution, but it
11 matches
Mail list logo
