<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/12/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Duncan Grisby</b> <<a href="mailto:duncan@grisby.org">duncan@grisby.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wednesday 11 October, "Stephan February" wrote: <br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> - Enforcing a single access point (based on a paper titled "Architectural
<br>> Patterns for Enabling Application Security")<br>> I am thinking that using Custom Servant Managers allows one to achieve<br>> this.<br><br>I'm not sure what that means. Can you explain?</blockquote>
<div><br><br>The Single Access Point design pattern is explained in this paper:<br> <a href="http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/%7Ehanmer/PLoP-97/Proceedings/yoder.pdf" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/~hanmer/PLoP-97/Proceedings/yoder.pdf</a><br><br>In my implementation I intend to :<br> a) Create my own POA <br> b) Create a custom servant manager for POA in (a)<br> c) Enforce Role Based Access Controls against (oid, operation) tuple in the preinvoke() method
<br> of the servant manager. i.e. Refuse to return a servant object for which a user does not <br> have appropriate privileges.<br><br>Do you forsee any problems with this approach (other then that all my servants *must* be registered with my "secured" POA).
<br><br>Regards<br>Stephan<br><br></div></div><br>