[infinispan-dev] Fine-grained security proposals

[William Burns]

>From the perspective of liking to control things, I agree on the callback
version.  The callback implementation also seems like it will be much
easier to implement and maintain as well :)  Guessing we can put everything
in SecureCache as well then.

 - Will

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:26 AM Dan Berindei <dan.berindei at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless there is a big push for ACLs from users, I think we should
> stick to the callback version.
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I've created a wiki entry for fine-grained authorization. Please look at
> it:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Fine-grained-security-for-caches
> >
> > And let me know your thoughts. Personally I'm not sure the second case
> > is worth the effort, but it definitely has its advantages.
> >
> > Tristan
> > --
> > Tristan Tarrant
> > Infinispan Lead
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > _______________________________________________
> > infinispan-dev mailing list
> > infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20150915/4c9f884c/attachment.html