Hi all, Shane, Pedro and I have been discussing the following use case and agree on method name change. Shane suggested the list due to it being an API change. The developer can ask the Identity Manager to create an instance of User/Role/Group (IdentityType). This use case is pretty clear. Now if the developer wants to create his own instances of U/R/G as: User user = new SimpleUser("userA"); Now he needs to persist this to the store. The current API call would be: User storeUser = identityManager.createUser(user) We feel this is not as intuitive as: User storeUser = identityManager.persist(user) Objections to this API change? Regards, Anil _______________________________________________ security-dev mailing list security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev

I prefer add() to persist(), IMO it's more obvious. On 29 Nov 2012, at 01:24, Shane Bryzak wrote: > Just to add to this, the idea is to essentially mimic the JPA API, which > provides persist(), merge() and remove() methods. What we are proposing > is a slight variation of this, as follows: > > public interface IdentityManager { > > // snip other methods > > /** > * Persists the specified IdentityType > */ > void persist(IdentityType identityType); > > /** > * Updates the persisted state of the specified IdentityType, with > the exception of the id and name for Groups, and name for Roles > */ > void update(IdentityType identityType); > > /** > * Removes the specified IdentityType > */ > void remove(IdentityType identityType); > } > > Just a reminder, that IdentityType is the super-type for User, Group and > Role so these methods can be used for any of these. This would simplify > the IdentityManager API considerably (replacing an existing 7 methods > with just 3) while providing more functionality (currently the API > doesn't allow Roles or Groups to be updated). > > On 11/29/2012 10:40 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote: >> Hi all, >> Shane, Pedro and I have been discussing the following use case and >> agree on method name change. Shane suggested the list due to it being an >> API change. >> >> The developer can ask the Identity Manager to create an instance of >> User/Role/Group (IdentityType). This use case is pretty clear. >> >> Now if the developer wants to create his own instances of U/R/G as: >> >> User user = new SimpleUser("userA"); >> >> Now he needs to persist this to the store. >> >> The current API call would be: >> >> User storeUser = identityManager.createUser(user) >> >> We feel this is not as intuitive as: >> >> User storeUser = identityManager.persist(user) >> >> Objections to this API change? >> >> Regards, >> Anil >> _______________________________________________ >> security-dev mailing list >> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev > > _______________________________________________ > security-dev mailing list > security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev _______________________________________________ security-dev mailing list security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev

I prefer add() to persist(), IMO it's more obvious. On 29 Nov 2012, at 01:24, Shane Bryzak wrote: > Just to add to this, the idea is to essentially mimic the JPA API, which > provides persist(), merge() and remove() methods. What we are proposing > is a slight variation of this, as follows: > > public interface IdentityManager { > > // snip other methods > > /** > * Persists the specified IdentityType > */ > void persist(IdentityType identityType); > > /** > * Updates the persisted state of the specified IdentityType, with > the exception of the id and name for Groups, and name for Roles > */ > void update(IdentityType identityType); > > /** > * Removes the specified IdentityType > */ > void remove(IdentityType identityType); > } > > Just a reminder, that IdentityType is the super-type for User, Group and > Role so these methods can be used for any of these. This would simplify > the IdentityManager API considerably (replacing an existing 7 methods > with just 3) while providing more functionality (currently the API > doesn't allow Roles or Groups to be updated). > > On 11/29/2012 10:40 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote: >> Hi all, >> Shane, Pedro and I have been discussing the following use case and >> agree on method name change. Shane suggested the list due to it being an >> API change. >> >> The developer can ask the Identity Manager to create an instance of >> User/Role/Group (IdentityType). This use case is pretty clear. >> >> Now if the developer wants to create his own instances of U/R/G as: >> >> User user = new SimpleUser("userA"); >> >> Now he needs to persist this to the store. >> >> The current API call would be: >> >> User storeUser = identityManager.createUser(user) >> >> We feel this is not as intuitive as: >> >> User storeUser = identityManager.persist(user) >> >> Objections to this API change? >> >> Regards, >> Anil >> _______________________________________________ >> security-dev mailing list >> security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev > _______________________________________________ > security-dev mailing list > security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev