I very much appreciate your taking the time to think about the different issues that people have (I have seen you giving great suggestions on a lot of other issues too). Definitely thanks for your help.
The second suggestion that you gave below about clustering, is exactly what I was thinking of. But as you pointed out that it is a new feature and *very untested*, I would opt for that solution as a last resort. At this point I am looking for a very quick and sure shot solution. I was just hoping that may be slide.properties could be configured per namespace. Alas I don't think thats possible, at least with the current implementation. One question on performance impact due to security checks: what is the most time consuming aspect of slide security? Is it the enumeratePermissions method? Regards, Ritu -----Original Message----- From: James Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:42 AM To: Slide Users Mailing List Subject: Re: A question on security configuration Ok, so you don't like my ideas :). I've never played with namespaces, so that could be a good option and I wouldn't know it :). However, since security is controlled in the slide.properties file you're probably going to need a completely separate instance of Slide. So my *new* suggestion is to try running two instance of Slide in a cluster, one with security and the other without. There's info for how to configure this on the Wiki. Clustering is very untested at this point, so if you've got the time it would be great if you could put it through its paces :). -James Ritu Kedia wrote: > Thanks for the reply James. > > Your approach has 2 problems: > 1. The most important one is : I want to avoid slide security checks for > performance reasons and specially since I am already doing the > authorization, I definitely want to avoid slide side overhead. > 2. Even if I ignore performance, I still face a problem with the user info > logging against every activity. In other words I lose the information about > who uploaded the file/locked it/checked it in. > > What about the namespace solution... is it possible to configure different > security properties for a different namespace in the same App Server > instance? > Or could you suggest some other alternate whereby I could turn off security > checks when accessed from a particular client? > > Regards, > Ritu > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:28 PM > To: Slide Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: A question on security configuration > > > Ritu, > One option might be to have a user account with all access to every node > in your store and always use that account when connecting with your > application. > > -James > > Ritu Kedia wrote: > > >>I am using Slide in 2 modes: >>1. From within my Application, in which case my application acts as the >>entry point for a client. >>2. From a third party client, in which case Slide is the entry point for > > the > >>client. >> >>Slide is accessed from within my application using the Slide WebDAV client >>lib. Whereas it is accessed from the third party client via WebDAV (e.g. >>WebFolders in MS). >>In both these cases, the authentication is done using JAAS. And >>authorization depends on the mode of access. When accessed from within my >>application, the authorization will be done by my application but when >>accessed directly from a 3rd party client, the authorization should be > > done > >>by Slide's security support. In other words, my requirement is to turn off >>Slide's security in one mode and turn it on in the other mode. Both modes >>would be active simultaneously. Could someone please provide me any >>hints/help with designing a solution for the above requirement? >> >>One thought is to have 2 different namespaces, one for each of the above >>mode. Both these namespaces would access the same store but would have >>different security configurations. Is this achievable? I think this > > depends > >>on whether slide.properties is applicable per namespace or per domain. If >>anyone has implemented such a solution, then please do let me know. >> >> >>Regards, >>Ritu >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
