wicket-auth-roles is just an example. its not really meant to be
something you drop into your application, for that there is
wicketstuff-wasp and wicketstuff-swarm
-igor
On Jan 12, 2008 9:14 AM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have several successful Wicket projects going, and in all have used my own
> authorization strategy based on annotations. I'm just trying
> wicket-auth-roles for my next project, but seem confused by the apparent
> String-only roles. I already have a domain model where a User has a Role or
> Role(s), where Role is a class. This promotes type-safety, etc, etc.
>
> But, I can't go:
>
> @AuthorizeInstantiation({ Role.ADMIN, Role.SUPER_USER,
> Role.MEMBER_SERVICE_REP, Role.MEMBER })
>
> I also can't do:
>
> @AuthorizeInstantiation({ Role.ADMIN.name(), Role.SUPER_USER.name (),
> Role.MEMBER_SERVICE_REP.name(), Role.MEMBER.name() })
>
> So, do I *have* to use Strings? Or is there another way? If I have to use
> Strings, then I either have to redefine all my roles and change how the DB
> stores them, or just use the names of my own roles (i.e . "SUPER_USER" which
> later my UserAuthorizer does a Role.valueOf(String) on), and risk typoes
> messing me up, or have Role.SUPER_USER and Role.SUPER_USER_NAME as a public
> static final String.
>
> It's been a long week - I could be missing something.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeremy
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
