I'm re-working some form of security back into the AssetService but am
having a real hard time justifying making the protected resources concept a
configurable option.

Specifically, all that I intend to do initially is protect all .class
resources. It feels very inefficient to imagine iterating/loooping/hash
lookup of incoming string values to the configured resources. I'm thinking
that maybe hard-coding (in some fashion) the .class extension logic may be a
better choice until someone presents a scenerio where they feel they need
more?

This wouldn't/shouldn't have any affect on sharing global resources and
such, just trying to make the asset service as simple/streamlined as
possible.

Thoughts are definitely welcome.

jesse
On 12/25/05, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The extension mechanism feels dirty to me, because it just sounds like
> something that could easily be tricked by hacker types, I just can't think
> of a scenerio where that's true yet.
>
> The ultimate problem I'm initially trying to solve is getting my old
> friend dojo to work with the asset service. It does async io requests for
> .js/.css/.html files relative to it's root context on an "as needed" basis.
> This sort of breaks the current impl because the urls are definitely not
> handed out by the asset service beforehand.
>
> Your idea may be good as well, my brain isn't following the parsing and
> url rewriting part as easily though. Maybe you are giving me too much credit
> ;)
>
> I definitely don't want to ~hack~ in fixes for my problems though, if this
> isn't ideal I can stop and re-think.
>
> On 12/25/05, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about this as well. Not protecting certain resources,
> > by extension, may be a very good solution. It's probably easier to
> > implement than my idea, which is to parse CSS files and rewrite URLs.
> >
> > On 12/25/05, Jesse Kuhnert < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm writing this message to be sure I haven't misunderstood what the
> > > intentions of the asset service digestion of url strings were/are
> > before I
> > > go breaking them.
> > >
> > > From what I can tell the largest need for protection is that of .class
> > files
> > > because the asset service exposes the inner classloader resources of
> > the
> > > running jvm. This makes sense, but the protection of ALL resources
> > this way
> > > also hurts some other things.
> > >
> > > I'm pondering creating a new hivemind configuration contribution that
> > > defines what types of resources should be protected. This could go the
> > other
> > > way too, where it defines what types of resources ~shouldn't~ be
> > protected,
> > > but the first seems easiest. Initially I'm thinking that only
> > resources
> > > ending in .class file names will be protected.
> > >
> > > This also starts the ball rolling on fixing the other issue we have,
> > which
> > > is the disconnect between the Shell component's js/css includes and
> > those
> > > private assets provided by libraries/components that wish to provide
> > them. I
> > > think that components should be able to auto-include their global
> > resources
> > > into the Shell component somehow. Not sure how yet. It could either be
> > a
> > > default that is allowed, additonally allowing hivemind configuration
> > points
> > > to exclude or disallow all or specific components/libraries from
> > > contributing their global assets.  This hints at the IAsset class
> > starting
> > > to have knowledge of types of resources, or at least a configurable
> > string
> > > grouping mechanism. Guess we can figure that one out when we get to
> > it.
> > >
> > > jesse
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> >
> > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to