On 1/20/11 6:15 PM, Jeremy Mikola wrote:
I came across SensioCasBundle's YML test config and it appears this can
be done using a "templates:" option for "security.config:", as shown
here:
https://github.com/sensio/CasBundle/blob/master/Resources/config/Tests/config.yml

Not entirely intuitive, but this seems to be the official solution.

Yes, that's also used in my FacebookBundle. And by the way, with the new bundle management, the following line

template: %kernel.root_dir%/../src/Bundle/Sensio/CasBundle/Resources/config/security_templates.xml

will be replaced with the more easy to read and less fragile:

template: @SensioCasBundle/Resources/config/security_templates.xml

Fabien

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jeremy Mikola <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    When SecurityExtension::createAuthenticationListeners() finds all
    tagged "security.listener.factory" services, to generate listeners
    from keys like "form_login" and "http_basic", it's using a
    ContainerBuilder instance with an isolated scope, so it knows
    nothing about other bundles and extensions.  This effectively makes
    it impossible for the security component to configure anything but
    its own listeners.

    I started looking into this because I implemented a
    pre-authenticated listener that uses HTTP basic (similar to how X509
    works but with different server vars).  Now that I'm at the point
    where I need to hook up the listener, I conveniently discovered this
    roadblock :)

    Aside from my LdapBundle and a branch in my SimpleCASBundle project,
    Sensio's CasBundle is the only other project I know of that
    implements an authentication listener.  Based on the
    https://github.com/sensio/CasBundle code, I don't see how it can
    integrate with security component either, as Jean-François merely
    tagged his services in the same manner.

    I spoke with Bulat about this and he suggested a proper solution
    would be for the firewall assembly to be done during
    FrameworkBundle's boot() step, after a full container is available.
    That seems right to me, although I expect this would be a
    significant refactoring (perhaps for one of the upcoming hack days
    or weekends?).

    --
    jeremy mikola




--
jeremy mikola

--
If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it
to security at symfony-project.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "symfony developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en

--
If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to 
security at symfony-project.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "symfony developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en

Reply via email to