Can you please add a Prior Art section to your proposal discussing these alternative solutions and why they are insufficient?
Thanks, Jake > On Jul 5, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Juan José Ramos <jra...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Hello Jake, > > I've replied something similar *here [1]*. > Long story short, I haven't found anything that really applies to our use > case. The "most similar solution" is *Spring Method Security [2]*, which > basically implies annotating methods with explicit configuration about the > roles required to execute them. The same goes for *Shiro **Annotation-based > Authorization [3]*. The *AnnotationBasedMethodAuthorize**r [3]* approach > from the proposal is somewhat similar to this, but I've discarded it > because if forces the user to annotate classes with our own annotations, > basically forcing them to modify their domain model. > The proposal basically allows our users to use one of the default of the > box implementations and, if they don't like them for whatever reason, is > flexible enough so they can ultimately provide their own. > Hope this helps. > Cheers. > > [1]: > https://markmail.org/message/ekons7ixtz4jtf7n#query:+page:1+mid:snxgpsqd3yuppmsc+state:results > [2]: > https://docs.spring.io/spring-security/site/docs/5.1.5.RELEASE/reference/html/jc.html#jc-method > [3]: > https://shiro.apache.org/authorization.html#Authorization-AnnotationbasedAuthorization > [4]: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/OQL+Method+Invocation+Security#OQLMethodInvocationSecurity-AnnotationBasedMethodAuthorizer > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:46 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> So if we don’t want to use the Java built in SecurityManager to solve >> this, because we feel it's too big or too inflexible for our needs, have >> other projects implemented something we can borrow? We can’t be the first >> to need something like this if Java’s solution isn’t a good fit. >> >> Again I want to avoid inventing something new. What prior art is out there? >> >> >>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Juan José Ramos <jra...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> If you haven't added my email to the spam folder already :-), then I'd >> like >>> to let you know that I've update again the *Proposal [1]* and >> incorporated >>> most of the feedback provided, along with some additional information and >>> context I missed on the previous versions, thanks all that brought >> concerns >>> and suggestions to the discussion. Please take some time to review it >>> thoroughly, adding comments and/or concerns *only on this email thread*, >>> all feedback is more than welcome. >>> If no major concerns arise before July 12th 2019, I'll go ahead and mark >>> move the proposal to *Development* on July 13th. >>> Best regards. >>> >>> [1]: >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/OQL+Method+Invocation+Security >> >> > > -- > Juan José Ramos Cassella > Senior Technical Support Engineer > Email: jra...@pivotal.io > Office#: +353 21 4238611 > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT > How to upload artifacts: > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073 > How to escalate a ticket: > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556 > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter] > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin] > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook] > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus] > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube] > <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
