Hi Gerhard,
I am a little confused. What do you mean by "no api change for @Secures"? Are you talking about the method level annotation or the parameter annotation that is needed as a "qualifier" for the result of the business method? Am 15.12.12 22:29 schrieb "Gerhard Petracek" unter <[email protected]>: >+1 for @SecuredOnReturn or @SecuredResult as an additional annotation (-> >no api changes for @Secures). > >regards, >gerhard > > > >2012/12/15 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > >> I've updated the gist [1] (see ReadingAuthorizer0) to see how it works >>out. >> If we leave out the "on", then it would even read better. You could read >> the method call like a sentence: >> >> public boolean isAllowedToRead(@SecuredReturn Address a... >> >> >> >> So +1 for @SecuredReturn from me >> >> >> [1] https://gist.github.com/4279323 >> >> >> >> Am 15.12.12 21:59 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >and the secure one too so it is not ambigous +1 for this one >> > >> >Romain Manni-Bucau >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> >2012/12/15 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>: >> >> You mean to the second list? >> >> I like that, because it contains the java keyword "return" >> >> With this I would feel comfortable with 1.C >> >> >> >> What do the others think? >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 15.12.12 21:51 schrieb "Gerhard Petracek" unter >> >> <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >>>we could add @SecuredOnReturn to the list. >> >>> >> >>>regards, >> >>>gerhard >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>2012/12/15 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >> >>> >> >>>> I am also not happy with that name. >> >>>> >> >>>> So we have to decide about two annotations >> >>>> 1. The method-level annotation of the authorizer method: >> >>>> A. @Secures(BEFORE_INVOCATION) and @Secures(AFTER_INVOCATION) >> >>>> B. @Secures and @SecuresResult >> >>>> C. @Secures for both (pre- and post method-invocation >>authorization, >> >>>> distinguishing by the existence of the parameter-level annotation) >> >>>> 2. The parameter-level annotation of the injected result (something >> >>>>like a >> >>>> qualifier for the result of the business-method invocation) >> >>>> A. @Result >> >>>> B. @SecuredResult >> >>>> C. Other proposals? >> >>>> >> >>>> And we should consider both together, i.e. The word "Result" in the >> >>>> method-level annotation AND the parameter-level annotation looks >>ugly. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> Arne >> >>>> >> >>>> Am 14.12.12 18:15 schrieb "Gerhard Petracek" unter >> >>>> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >-1 for @Result (as a name), because the name is too generic. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >regards, >> >>>> >gerhard >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >2012/12/14 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> I have done the coding and we just need to agree on the names of >> >>>>the >> >>>> >> annotations. >> >>>> >> Looking at the gist I have no strong opinion on one of the >> >>>>solutions. >> >>>> >> However I like the @Secures(AFTER_INVOCATION) a little more >>because >> >>>>of >> >>>> >>to >> >>>> >> things: >> >>>> >> First it is symmetric to @Secures(BEFORE_INVOCATION) and second >>the >> >>>> >>other >> >>>> >> solution has the word "Result" twice in the declaration: once in >> >>>>the >> >>>> >> method annotation and once in the parameter annotation. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Cheers, >> >>>> >> Arne >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Am 13.12.12 21:09 schrieb "Arne Limburg" unter >> >>>> >> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >Hi Mark, >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >I have coded a gist to lookup an address from an entityManager >> >>>>(see >> >>>> >>[1]) >> >>>> >> >using the groups suggested by Rudy: >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >group1 (in my case users with role "guest") -> no access at >>all >> >>>> >> >group2 (in my case the owner of the address) -> has access but >> >>>>only >> >>>>to >> >>>> >>a >> >>>> >> >limited set of result types (access to his addresses) >> >>>> >> >group3 (in my case users with role "admin") -> has access and >>can >> >>>>see >> >>>> >>all >> >>>> >> >result >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >I have coded the authorizer twice once using >> >>>>@Secures(AFTER_INVOCATION) >> >>>> >> >and once using @SecuresResult. >> >>>> >> >I think it is obvious that we need just one interceptor (for >>the >> >>>>custom >> >>>> >> >security annotation @Read) >> >>>> >> >and it should be obvious, too, that it makes no sense to >>annotate >> >>>>one >> >>>> >>of >> >>>> >> >the authorizer methods with both @Secures and @SecuresResult >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >Hope that helps, >> >>>> >> >Arne >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >[1] https://gist.github.com/4279323 >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >Am 13.12.12 19:27 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter >> >>>><[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >>Could be helpful if we gather some samples in a gist? >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>It seems that I have a different understanding about it's >>usage >> >>>>than >> >>>> >>Arne >> >>>> >> >>(which is much more into it). Arnes argument sounded well >>funded, >> >>>>but >> >>>> >> >>this excesses my knowledge right now. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>It basically boils down to >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>1. does it make sense to have both annotations on the same >> >>>>method? >> >>>> >> >>2. will the stuff get handled by the same interceptor? (well, >>we >> >>>>will >> >>>> >> >>anyway do the @Dependent InterceptorStrategy trick for it I >> >>>>guess, >> >>>>so >> >>>> >>no >> >>>> >> >>real problem) >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>LieGrue, >> >>>> >> >>strub >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>>> >> >>> From: Jason Porter <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>> To: "[email protected]" >> >>>> >> >>><[email protected]>; Mark Struberg >> >>>> >><[email protected] >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >>> Cc: >> >>>> >> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:32 PM >> >>>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DELTASPIKE-298 support >> >>>> >>post-method-authorization >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> +1 to Mark's names >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Mark Struberg >> >>>><[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>wrote: >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> what about @Secures and @SecuresResult? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> These are 2 different inteceptors, right? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> A method could also have both >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> @Secures and >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> @SecuresResult >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> LieGrue, >> >>>> >> >>>> strub >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >________________________________ >> >>>> >> >>>> > From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>> >To: "[email protected]" < >> >>>> >> >>>> [email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>> >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:11 PM >> >>>> >> >>>> >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DELTASPIKE-298 support >> >>>> >> >>>>post-method-authorization >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >OK, >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >so I would go with your first suggestion, Romain: >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >@Secures(BEFORE_INVOCATION) and >>@Secures(AFTER_INVOCATION) >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >That would leave the readability of the authorizer method >> >>>>and >> >>>> >> >>>> >BEFORE_INVOCATION could be the default, so that it could >> >>>>left >> >>>> >>blank. >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >Of course the extension detects at deployment time the >> >>>>problem >> >>>> >>that >> >>>> >> >>>>a >> >>>> >> >>>> >authorizer method exists with @Secures(BEFORE_INVOCATION) >> >>>>and >> >>>>a >> >>>> >> >>> parameter >> >>>> >> >>>> >annotated with @Result and suggests to use >> >>>> >> >>>>@Secures(AFTER_INVOCATION) >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >Wdyt? >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >Am 13.12.12 12:03 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter >> >>>> >> >>>> ><[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>if you add the "post" management @Secures will be >> >>>> >> >>> ambiguous (even if >> >>>> >> >>>> >>naturally i understand pre is implicit) so i'd just >>switch >> >>>>it >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>if the API is explicit enough to not need doc it is >>better >> >>>>;) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>>> >> >>>> >>LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>2012/12/13 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> Btw. are we talking about another name for @Secures or >> >>>>for >> >>>> >> >>> @Result? >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> Thinking about @Secures it should not be too confusing >> >>>> >> >>> (talking with >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> myself here ;-) ), since the developer knows, if he >>needs >> >>>>the >> >>>> >> >>> result >> >>>> >> >>>> for >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> evaluation or not. So either he adds @Result and will >> >>>>know >> >>>> >> >>> that the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>method >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> needs to be invoked before the authorization. Or he >> >>>> >> >>> doesn't need the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> result, then the intuitive thing is, that the >> >>>>authorization >> >>>> >> >>> takes place >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> before the business method invocation... >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> Am 13.12.12 11:55 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>so i'd go for @PreSecures and @PostSecures, just >> >>>> >> >>> explicit >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>but i wouldn't something not symmetrical >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>2012/12/13 Arne Limburg >> >>>> >> >>> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> @Secures sounds cool at a first glance, but may it >>be >> >>>> >> >>> confusing for >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>users? >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> And also we should support a mixture of >> >>>> >> >>> @SecurityParameterBindings >> >>>> >> >>>> and >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> result, so the annotation should somehow indicate >>that >> >>>> >> >>> the parameter >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>is >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> the return value of the method invocation. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Consider the following example: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> @Copy >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> public MyObject copy(@Source MyObject source) { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> ... >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> public class MyCopyAuthorizer { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> @Secures @Copy >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> public boolean isCopyAllowed(@Source MyObject >> >>>> >> >>> source, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> @SecuredReturnValue MyObject target) { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> ... >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> where @Copy is a @SecurityBindingType and @Source >>is a >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> @SecurityParameterBinding >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Arne >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Am 13.12.12 11:45 schrieb "Romain >> >>>> >> >>> Manni-Bucau" unter >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>Why @Secures is not fine? >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>if the rule is "on parameter" it is a >> >>>> >> >>> post it can be enough. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>Another solution is @Secure(hook = POST) with a >> >>>> >> >>> default to PRE >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>2012/12/13 Arne Limburg >> >>>> >> >>> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Feel free to make a suggestion. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> What about >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> @SecuredResult >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> or >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> @SecuredReturnValue >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> ? >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Am 13.12.12 10:50 schrieb "Gerhard >> >>>> >> >>> Petracek" unter >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[email protected]>: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>+1, but imo we need a better name for it. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>gerhard >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>2012/12/13 Rudy De Busscher >> >>>> >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> All, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> I had once also such a requirement >> >>>> >> >>> (post-method authorization) >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>where >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>this >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> could be very handy. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> We kept information about persons >> >>>> >> >>> (name, age, address, medical >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>info, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>...) >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> but there where some categories. One >> >>>> >> >>> kind of category was linked >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>to >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Royals and you needed a special role >> >>>> >> >>> before you could read the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>information. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> So we where only able to determine if >> >>>> >> >>> the user was allowed to >> >>>> >> >>>> read >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> person information after we had read >> >>>> >> >>> it frmo the database and >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>matched >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> category. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> So >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Rudy >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> On 13 December 2012 09:26, Arne >> >>>> >> >>> Limburg >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>><[email protected] >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > Hi Jean-Louis, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > A simple use case is a method >> >>>> >> >>> that creates an object, stores it >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>to >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > database and returns it. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > You may want to check the object >> >>>> >> >>> to decide if the user is >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>allowed >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>to >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > create it. With my proposal it is >> >>>> >> >>> as easy as: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > public class MyObjectRepository { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > @Create >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > public MyObject create() { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > ... >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > public class MyAuthorizer { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > @Secures @Create >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > public boolean >> >>>> >> >>> canCreate(@Result MyObject object) { >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > // security check here >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > } >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > Hope that makes it clear. And >> >>>> >> >>> note that the check may depend on >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>state >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > of the object, i.e. the user is >> >>>> >> >>> just allowed to create the >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>object, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>if >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>he >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > is the owner... >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > Cheers, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > Arne >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > Am 13.12.12 09:20 schrieb >> >>>> >> >>> "Jean-Louis MONTEIRO" unter < >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >Hi Arne, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >Just read the JIRA but could >> >>>> >> >>> not find a relevant use case for >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>that. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >But if you proposed it, I >> >>>> >> >>> probably missed something so if you >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>could >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >elaborate a bit more. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >Jean-Louis >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >2012/12/13 Mark Struberg >> >>>> >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> +1 >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> Arne Limburg schrieb am >> >>>> >> >>> Mi., 12. Dez 2012 23:38 PST: >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >What do you think of >> >>>> >> >>> supporting post-method-authorization >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>(see >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>>[1]) >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> addition to our current >> >>>> >> >>> pre-method-authorization? >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >I just started >> >>>> >> >>> coding it and it is not much to do. >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >Cheers, >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >Arne >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >[1] >> >>>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-298 >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >-- >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >Jean-Louis >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> -- >> >>>> >> >>> Jason Porter >> >>>> >> >>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >> >>>> >> >>> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> Software Engineer >> >>>> >> >>> Open Source Advocate >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >> >>>> >> >>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>
