[security-dev] IdentityManager API review
sbryzak at redhat.com
Wed Nov 7 15:11:29 EST 2012
On a somewhat related note, we should probably fix the constructor for
SimpleGroup also, which currently looks like this:
public SimpleGroup(String id, String name, Group parentGroup)
Having both id and parentGroup parameters is redundant, so I suggest
removing the id parameter (and removing the id field altogether) and
instead have the getId() method return a calculated id.
On 11/08/2012 06:08 AM, Shane Bryzak wrote:
> They're actually a fundamental part of the identity model (see ).
> I have no real problem with the principle of removing the String
> versions of createGroup() (we would also have to do the same to
> createRole() for consistency) and in fact it would provide some
> additional advantages. For example, being able to set a Group to
> being disabled at creation time, setting attribute values, etc. My
> only concern is from a coding "correctness" point of view, and I guess
> is centered around the creation date being automatically set (or
> potentially overridden) on the Group instance that's passed to
> createGroup(). It's probably not an important concern though, and I'm
> happy to concede on this one which would mean we end up with the
> following methods (replacing all existing createGroup() and
> createRole() methods):
> void createGroup(Group group);
> void createRole(Role role);
> On 11/08/2012 05:37 AM, Jason Porter wrote:
>> Aren't those implementation details though?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the security-dev