hi arne, adding a value to @Secures (e.g. AFTER_INVOCATION) would be such a change.
regards, gerhard 2012/12/15 Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > 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 > >> >>>> >> >>> > >> >>>> >> > > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
