[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: console security
by kukeltje
"david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote :
| I could, but why? I think for the initial deployment/evaluation, it's easiest for the end user to just go straight into the console. Remember that it is an administration console, not an end-user application. So there's no real benefit to requiring a login - not from an evaluation perspective, or a prototyping perspective.
I tend to disagree.... part of it is an administration console, part is simulating the process.. changing roles/users should be possible with seeing limited taskslists. Maybe the following thing sounds stupid, but if this (imo) basic functionality is not in the console, I will never get it soled to the managers here. It is then not usable for rapid prototyping and we need to develop a full webapp just to simulate the basics of a process. hmm....
"david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote :
| In fact it would make it harder since the users wouldn't know what to log in as unless we put the user list on the front page
| - something I am unwilling to do, because the user will then have to remove the list to deploy it into production.
I tend to disagree to. Often we create dummy users with the role in their name and a number added to it. Easily remembered and very usable. So the issue of the list on the homepage is not a real issue.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4054041#4054041
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4054041
18 years, 9 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: console security
by david.lloyd＠jboss.com
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : david, what is the status on the user names ?
It's not quite a simple search/replace. I'm working out a way to make the replacement without breaking unit tests. Should be done today.
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : can you also activate the security in the web.xml again ?
I could, but why? I think for the initial deployment/evaluation, it's easiest for the end user to just go straight into the console. Remember that it is an administration console, not an end-user application. So there's no real benefit to requiring a login - not from an evaluation perspective, or a prototyping perspective.
In fact it would make it harder since the users wouldn't know what to log in as unless we put the user list on the front page - something I am unwilling to do, because the user will then have to remove the list to deploy it into production.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4054031#4054031
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4054031
18 years, 9 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jbpm4jsf java 5 dependency
by david.lloyd＠jboss.com
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : only one console package needs to be build by the console subproject.
I don't see why, but OK...
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : that one needs to run on 1.4.2
I don't get that either, but OK
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : to get the java 5 console, people will have to build from source.
Sounds like unnecessary work for the user, but OK
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : i only want to support version of the console.
Well, you don't have a choice. If you want people to be able to run on 4.2.x, you have to at least support two versions. I think it would be a bad idea to restrict people to 4.0.x.
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : since we want 1.4.2 support, it must be that version. that one will run on java 5 runtimes.
...but not in 4.2.x.
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : so the question is: what version does the install target put in the local repository ? a java 1.4.2 compatible one ?
Your wish is my command - the 4.0.x, JDK 1.4 version is now the default.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4054007#4054007
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4054007
18 years, 9 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jbpm4jsf java 5 dependency
by david.lloyd＠jboss.com
The console outputs three versions: a JBossAS 4.2.x version, a JBossAS 4.0.x version, and a JBossAS 4.0.x/JDK 1.4 version. There is no need for a JDK 1.4 version for JBAS 4.2.x because the AS requires JDK5 to run.
jBPM4JSF, Gravel, and the JSF RI all require JDK 5. So the console target for JDK 1.4 runs JBossRetro across all of these libraries.
In order to put more than one version into the repository, we have two options:
1) update the directory structure so that there's a directory for each console WAR.
2) switch to distributing the exploded WAR zip archive instead, in which case we can name each one differently, since they all unzip to a directory called jbpm-console.war
I think we should do #2 personally, because this gives users easy access to all the configuration files, and makes it equally easy to install any version. I do not want to only put out the JDK 1.4 version by default, because if we have to choose between making life easiest for users of AS 4.2.x versus 4.0.x, I choose the former. In any case, rumor has it that Sun will be desupporting JDK 1.4 by the end of the year anyway...
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4053982#4053982
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4053982
18 years, 9 months