>From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 3/7/06, James Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >
> > >There is a subtle but important issue. Container managed security
> > only
> > >operates on the original URL to which a GET or POST was directed ... it
> > does
> > >*not* apply to RequestDispatc
On 3/7/06, James Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >There is a subtle but important issue. Container managed security
> only
> >operates on the original URL to which a GET or POST was directed ... it
> does
> >*not* apply to RequestDispatcher.forward() calls. In JSF terms, that
> means y
>There is a subtle but important issue. Container managed security
only
>operates on the original URL to which a GET or POST was directed ... it
does
>*not* apply to RequestDispatcher.forward() calls. In JSF terms, that
means you can protect the form submit, >but it is up to the application
to
Now I get it completely (I'm still getting up to speed on a lot of
this). Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Shale & Container Managed Securi
>From: "James Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >If you are using J2EE container managed security, why not use the
> standard
> >declarative security constraint on a url-pattern? You then assign
> roles
> >to the constraint and to groups and/or users.
> >
> >Gary
>
> Thanks Gary,
>
> May
On 3/7/06, James Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If you are using J2EE container managed security, why not use the
> standard
> >declarative security constraint on a url-pattern? You then assign
> roles
> >to the constraint and to groups and/or users.
> >
> >Gary
>
> Thanks Gary,
>
> Mayb
>If you are using J2EE container managed security, why not use the
standard
>declarative security constraint on a url-pattern? You then assign
roles
>to the constraint and to groups and/or users.
>
>Gary
Thanks Gary,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Craig's response (below). Perhaps he is
referring
es
to the constraint and to groups and/or users.
Gary
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig
> McClanahan
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:52 PM
> To: Struts User
irement?
Any advice would be appreciated.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig
McClanahan
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:52 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Shale & Container Managed Security
On 3/3/06, James Reynolds <[E
On 3/4/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/3/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If something like this is developed then it shouldn't be tied to
> > container managed security (i.e. request.isUserInRole()) and should be
> > easy to plug in custom implementatio
On 3/3/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If something like this is developed then it shouldn't be tied to
> container managed security (i.e. request.isUserInRole()) and should be
> easy to plug in custom implementations which could cater for other
> scenarios/criteria, such as the
On 3/3/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/3/06, James Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Allow me to refine my question. I'm wondering if the Shale filter is
> > intercepting requests to the container. Do I need to adjust the filter
> > mapping? Is there an FM somewhe
On 3/3/06, James Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Allow me to refine my question. I'm wondering if the Shale filter is
> intercepting requests to the container. Do I need to adjust the filter
> mapping? Is there an FM somewhere that I should R?
Shale's filters do indeed intercept whateve
Allow me to refine my question. I'm wondering if the Shale filter is
intercepting requests to the container. Do I need to adjust the filter
mapping? Is there an FM somewhere that I should R?
-Original Message-
From: James Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006
14 matches
Mail list logo
