The bad thing about tapestry-acegi is that it is not very flexible, though. Recently I was trying to apply tapestry-acegi for CAS authentication (http://www.ja-sig.org/products/cas/) and found that I had to rewrite almost every line of its module class, which unfortunately indicates that tapestry-acegi is not very reusable. On the other hand, tapestry-acegi does have an added value above the core Acegi (for example, worker that allows applying the @Secured to the methods/pages), so I can’t just throw it away and write my own module file — that’s not enough, I need these helper classes.
yuan gogo wrote:
I don't understand u well, I think. But I'm not making FUD here if you read the mail list before. Or my English is so bad to understand u, if so, I apologize. yes, security "without configuration" is impossible, by "without configuration" I mean I hope there's something looks like "Native", if that confused u, please blame my pool English at will. After sereval months using Tapestry 5, I like it very much. I hope I can work with tapestry only, at least no spring any more. But if I use acegi, spring jar will be included too, that makes me unconfortable because I think tapestry-ioc is good enough for my work and I don't need any other stuff spring provides. At least, if tapestry-acegi doesn't have a dependency on spring, that will be very GOOD! Just my own point of view. Thanks! 2008/3/19, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:I love it when someone invents new people to stage internet conversations. note the "just only" and other little language features that this troll uses in all his posts, regardless of the story. Even if I'm wrong in that supposition, this is open-source software. If this was a real request, and not just another attempt to slander Tapestry, then this person could make concrete recommendations, or even better, contribute code. But mostly I love the premises. In a "real web framework" security is "built in" and no configuration is even necessary. Bullcrap. Every security system needs configuration, because no system can anticipate all possible needs and use-cases and auto-configure for that magically discovered state. And why should T5 re-build what someone already wrote and tested. If acegi works, then why not integrate it? Ooh, wait! I know, I know! HLS sucks because he didn't create his own O/R Mapping layer! 'Cause why use Cayenne/Hibernate/JPA/TopLink when you can, without compelling necessity, write your own, untested system from scratch! Meh. Christian. On 18-Mar-08, at 23:51 , Joshua Jackson wrote:I agree. I have requested this before for Tapestry to be a full web framework since right now it's just only a plain web framework. On 3/19/08, yuan gogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Tapestry is good. But I personally think it's lack of something that should be built- in. e.gsecurity! It's right that tapestry can work well with acegisecurity, but it's not native, is it? And we programmer need time to write the configuration, debug ........ it's boring! Even there has been tapestry-acegi, but 2 projects can not be always be synchronous. What's more, tapestry-acegi can not do all that acegi does. I was asp.net user once, even I think it's not so good, but it's good for "rapid" development, because some functions like security is built- in. thanks.-- Let's show the world what we've got. Blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
-- WBR, Ivan S. Dubrov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
