> I'm also a bit surprised at how eager people are to make use of
> cumbersome solutions like Spring Security to accomplish simple tasks
> such
> as protecting pages. The Spring Security logic is path-based,
> requiring an awkward mapping from paths to Tapestry pages. When I
> need to implement that
> kind of security, I define annotations that I can place on pages and
> provide a filter that checks for the annotation on the page ... and
> I've seen multiple clients
> do the same thing. Ideally there would be a single solution for this,
> but I've found that page security is just not a one-size-fits-all
> solution.
Howard, I think people are looking for these kind of integrations
because there is no tapestry module allowing them to secure there
pages. Of course you may argument that it is easy to build a
Dispatcher and define some custom annotations. That's true if you
managed to understand how these things work. But if you've just
started with tapestry, in my experience this is not that easy. Then
you remember about Spring Security or any other solution you are used
to and try to make use of it in your new tapestry-world.
In my oppinion, providing a standard way which fits for most users
would help a lot. Given that there is chenillekit and tynamo-security,
maybe its even enough to promote them in prominent place on the
homepage. Something like a page with common problems and their
solution... But its important to tell the users that its OK to use
third-party modules that are not part of the project.
But some companies do not allow non-apache modules at all (or the
process of getting admission is time consuming..). But my feeling is
tapestry is not used in these places anyway, so it may not be an
argument.
Piero
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
