This mapping works reasonably in a J2EE environment because the granularity
of role definitions doesn't vary too dramatically. As a web service spec,
WSRP had better worry about cross platform issues as well. As soon as one
moves out of the J2EE world, the chances that the granularity of role
definitions is close drops precipitously.
Rex suggested the role fields could just be optional ... they are, but what
this means for a Consumer that doesn't use roles and wants to use the
maximum number of Producers is pretending they support the spec defined
roles (e.g. mapping whatever internal access control mechanisms are in use
to the spec defined roles) and trying to map these onto the Producer
published roles. I assert this will fail miserably more than it will
succeed.
Andre Kramer
<andre.kramer@eu. To:
citrix.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] Roles
11/26/2002 08:48
AM
J2EE also has the concept of role mapping in that a developer can write her
application in terms of her usual set of roles. The deployer of the
application can then map those roles, at deployment time, using a
relatively
simple XML role reference description mechanism. I view wsrp consumer roles
as the analogue of the J2EE developer's role set, the consumer Portal admin
as the analogue of the application deployer (at service registration time),
and the role names on the wire as the J2EE container roles. So, we
potentially have two similar mappings of roles: consumer to producer and
JSR
168 Portlet to J2EE Container? Each requiring human intervention.
regards,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:]
Sent: 26 November 2002 12:52
To: Martin Bryan
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] Roles
I have had the uneasy feeling about roles for a while, but rewriting those
sections finally caused me to focus on it enough to see the detailed
reasons why (you site some good examples). At this point I think it is only
useful to that set of Consumer-Producer pairs that have a coordinated set
of roles and since we won't be able to define tight semantics it doesn't
belong in the spec.
On the address side, the variations in address are a big issue and WSRP is
not the right place to tackle it. We took guidance from the P3P data model
in this area though we did need to provide some structure for their
unstructured portions. I was hoping much of the variability could go into
the field named street as this is an array of strings. In addition, each of
the structures is individually extensible with the expectation that some of
those extensions will come back for consideration as base level fields in
v2. If there are other sources that would give a more internationalized
view of this area, we certainly would appreciate a pointer ....
"Martin Bryan"
<[email protected] To: Rich
Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
et.com> cc:
Subject: Re: [wsrp][wsia]
Draft spec v0.85
11/25/2002 11:35
AM
Rich
