Unfortunately that would break the PermissionResolver interface, and the
meaning of what a Permission is has been well defined in Seam 2.1.0 (for
the better). Can you give me an example of one of these permission
checks and the corresponding rule?
Dan Allen wrote:
Shane,
It appears that when the migration was made to the chain of permission
resolvers in Seam 2.1, the ability to place arbitrary objects into the
Drools working memory was lost. Before Seam 2.1, a permission check
consisted of a name, an action, and an unbounded set of contextual
objects. In Seam 2.1, only the first optional argument is considered,
and it's inserted into the working memory in place of the name.
public boolean hasPermission(String name, String action, Object...arg)
{
...
if (arg != null)
{
return permissionMapper.resolvePermission(arg[0], action);
}
else
{
return permissionMapper.resolvePermission(name, action);
}
}
I have quite a number of rules that rely on both the name and the
extra parameters. I'm sure others do as well. Can we change this logic
so that the permission mapper preserves the ordering of arguments and
the RuleBasedPermissionMapper stuffs the optional arguments into the
working memory?
-Dan