Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Would this be a bad idea? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This topic is closed
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Would this be a bad idea?

    I'm trying to integrate Spring with Tapestry and I'm stuck on applying the objectDefinitionSyntax of my filterInvocationInterceptor to Tapestry's URL conventions (i.e. when everything is of the form /app?page=xxx)

    Would it be a Bad Idea to extend the org.acegisecurity.intercept.web.FilterInvocationDe finitionSourceEditor to support the following "PUBLIC" vs "SECURE" syntax...the idea being that if the string matches PUBLIC, don't add the URL to the source.

    Code:
         
     <property name="objectDefinitionSource">
             <value>			   	     
    		\A/app?page=Login\Z=PUBLIC,ROLE_ANONYMOUS	     
    		\A/.*\Z=SECURE,ROLE_USER				
             </value>
    Is there a better way to do this? I don't see how Tapestry & Acegi integrate easily without this...

    Thanks in advance!

  • #2
    Nevermind

    See this thread for how I got around this lame idea for a Tapestry fix:

    http://forum.springframework.org/showthread.php?t=24013

    Comment

    Working...
    X