rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Spring Permissions Change
Date Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:07:54 GMT
Tony,

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Carlucci, Tony <acarlucci@mitre.org> wrote:

> Hi Chris, could you go a little more into your use case (I think what
> you've hinted at it with your Widget->add_comment block)?  I believe the
> spirit of that Permission enum was to define the context of the security
> check to keep in line with CRUD actions.  The detailed business logic of
> the Model/Permission Context combination can then be customized as needed
> in the various Default<Model>PagePermissionEvaluator.hasPermission
> functions.  So if there is some specific security logic related to adding a
> comment to a widget, I believe you can put it in the appropriate
> PermissionEvaluator class.
>

I understand the current model and I think it works great for top level
objects but it doesn't work all so well for subordinate objects, or for
business logic checks that are beyond CRUD. Right now everything is a top
level object (everything has it's own repository for example) but as part
of the object model restructure we have proposed to change that slightly.
If you view WidgetComment as a subordinate object to a Widget, the security
checks are different. Instead of checking WidgetComment => "Create" as a
standalone check, you really want to check Widget => "can_add_comment"
which is at the Widget level since the Comment doesn't exist yet. This
check would check to make sure the Widget is published, that the user has
access to the Widget, etc. Once the WidgetComment exists, the current
checks in place make sense (mostly).

I know currently we could just check the widget in the
WidgetCommentPermissionEvaluator because the WidgetComment has an attribute
of "widget_id" but that is another thing we are proposing to change in the
object model restructure. As we try and restructure things so that we can
support backends other than JPA we need to tweak the object model at the
interface level. For example, WidgetComment would no longer have an
attribute of widget_id, it is just associated with whatever widget it's
part of. This cleans up a few things like being able to create a
WidgetComment with a widget_id of 3 but adding it to the WidgetComment
collection of Widget id 2.

Does that make sense?

Beyond the WidgetComment example I still think there is a need for more
fine grained permission checks. For example:
 - can_publish_widget
 - can_reset_other_users_password (low level admin who can't do some other
functions)
 - can_delete_other_users_comment (like a moderator)
 - ...

I know those functions can be covered by "admin" but I know our product
needs a finer level of control than just "admin". This will become much
more important as we start talking multi-tenancy which I'll bring up again
soon where you need multiple levels of admins.

Chris

>
> Am I understanding your use case or completely off the mark? :)
>
> Tony
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Geer [mailto:chris@cxtsoftware.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:50 PM
> >To: dev
> >Subject: [Proposal] Spring Permissions Change
> >
> >I would like to propose we change how the spring permission checks work
> >slightly. Right now the "Permission" value (i.e. Create, Update...) is
> >defined as part of a enum named Permission defined in
> >the org.apache.rave.portal.security.ModelPermissionEvaluator interface.
> The
> >various hasPermissions methods take an instance of that Permission enum
> >(created from a string on the check permission annotation). Having the
> >permissions defined in an enumeration limits what we are able to check
> >permissions for in my opinion. Right now we have two choices, 1) limit our
> >permission checks to the list there is now, 2) add new permissions to the
> >generic Permissions enum which could lead to a bunch of permissions stored
> >on a generic enum that aren't really reusable (i.e. Widget -> add_comment
> >permission). I would like to propose we change the way we define
> >permissions to remove the enum and just pass along the string defined in
> >the annotations. The only real downside of that is that we can't use a
> >switch/case statement during permissions checks unless we use Java7.
> >
> >Thoughts/concerns?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Chris
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message