Yes, I guess it might work. Do you already have AuthorityVoter support?
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 16:38, Taha Hafeez <tawus.tapes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will this work
>
> interface BuisnessObject {
> public String getOwner();
> }
>
> class Foo implements BusinessObject {
> }
>
>
> class BusinessObjectVoter extends AuthorityVoter<BusinessVoter> {
>
> public void vote(Subject, Object object, Vote vote){
> if(object instanceof BuisnessObject){
> BusinessObject bs = (BusinessObject)object;
> if(bs.getOwner().equals(subject.getName()){
> vote.allow();
> }else {
> vote.deny();
> }
> }
> }
>
> public boolean supports(Object object){
> return object instanceof BusinessObject;
> }
> }
>
> regards
> Taha
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Dmitry Gusev <dmitry.gu...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > No, it can't. Role model is not enough here. I don't want _any_ manger to
> > update _any_ foo instance.
> > I want that *only manager created the foo instance* could update it. Can
> I
> > do that with your lib?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 16:04, Taha Hafeez <tawus.tapes...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can't that be achieved by securing service/dao methods
> >
> >
> > > @RequiresLogin
> > > public interface FooDAO {
> > >
> > > @RequiresRole("ADMIN")
> > > public void add(Foo foo);
> > >
> > > @RequiresRole("MANAGER")
> > > public void update(Foo foo);
> > > }
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Taha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Dmitry Gusev <dmitry.gu...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible using your library to implement security assertions
> > based
> > > on
> > > > business rules?
> > > > For instance, only allow object owner or admins to edit this object?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 14:38, Taha Hafeez <tawus.tapes...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > I have made a number of changes in the project to support
> @Requires*
> > > > > annotations. There is support for voting and adding new voters and
> > > > > providers. Adding custom annotation is also very easy. There is
> also
> > > > > support
> > > > > for regular-expression based page-authorization if you don't like
> > > > > annotations or like to keep security in AppModule only
> > > > >
> > > > > It is an example of how easy tapestry5 is. Even implementing a full
> > > > > authorization module is so easy!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > The link is
> > > > > http://code.google.com/p/tapestryauth
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://code.google.com/p/tapestryauth> regards
> > > > > Taha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Taha Hafeez <
> > > tawus.tapes...@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Werner
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it can be... It can act as a tapestry-layer over any
> > > > > > security/authentication framework...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will try to add an example for such a use but overall I want this
> > as
> > > a
> > > > > > standalone role-based access and permission-based access model
> for
> > > > > > tapestry which is apt for small projects and can be extended to
> > > larger
> > > > > > projects too..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But any suggestions will be more than helpful and especially
> > > > corrections
> > > > > > and criticism,,,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards
> > > > > > Taha
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Werner Keil <
> > werner.k...@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Is this related or may be used with SSO technologies like
> OpenID,
> > > SAML
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> OAuth?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Werner
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dmitry Gusev
> > > >
> > > > AnjLab Team
> > > > http://anjlab.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dmitry Gusev
> >
> > AnjLab Team
> > http://anjlab.com
> >
>
--
Dmitry Gusev
AnjLab Team
http://anjlab.com
