[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [equinox-dev] authentication vs authorization
- From: "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:35:05 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Importance: Normal
The Higgins project will eventually address your use case. We are taking the
first steps towards it in our 0.3 release in March. However, since the
Higgins APIs are in flux, and the required encrypted store and user
interface (e.g. login dialog box) work has not yet started, Higgins won't be
ready for "real" use for several months at least. But in the long run it
will be a solution to this issue.
Scott Lewis wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> Well, one simple use case of immediate interest to ECF users
> 1) user starts Eclipse
> 2) they want (via ECF) to be automatically connected to their 3 (n)
> IM/other remote accounts upon startup
> 3) Each of these accounts has a) service type/protocol (URI) b)
> username; c) password and/or other credentials
> Think GAIM.
> And each of the n accounts that are connected really *should*, it seems,
> be determined by some notion of an authenticated platform user...with an
> associated user-specific secure datastore rather than have it be shared
> for every person that starts Eclipse and runs ECF plugins (i.e. which
> would be the case if ECF just stores all of this info in the preference
> store). Of course it's not limited to ECF plugins...team plugins/CVS,
> soap services plugins, etc., etc.
> If there are docs on the ConditionalPermissionAdmin I can/will take a
> look at them...I was unaware of it...but does it deal with the (pretty
> mundane I know) use case above or is it intended for something else?
> Benjamin Reed wrote:
> > Scott,
> > Could you provide an example of what you are talking about? The
> > ConditionalPermissionAdmin was designed with the flexibility to
> > address some of the things you are talking about in the mobile phone
> > space, so it would be good to get a feel for the aspects that you see
> > that are lacking. An example would help understand what is missing to
> > accomplish what you need.
> > thanx
> > ben
> > *Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> > Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 02/23/2006 07:28 PM
> > Please respond to Equinox development mailing list
> > To: Equinox development mailing list
> > <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc:
> > Subject: [equinox-dev] authentication vs authorization
> > I think I speak for a number of folks when I make the assertion that we
> > would like to see both authentication and authorization added to the 3.2
> > release of the platform. This is particularly true for projects like
> > ECF, where having some way to authenticate the local user and get access
> > to secure credentials for accessing remote accounts is very important.
> > Of course, in the long term it's also important that there be some way
> > to secure access to runtime bundles...and run potentially untrusted code
> > (at least not completely trusted code).
> > There is, I think, a real need for the emerging RCP app development
> > community to have at least a first cut authentication/login security in
> > Eclipse 3.2. Although I think it would be terrirfic to have a general
> > solution for authorization as well in that timeframe, I think
> > authorization is more clearly more important for most app
> > developers...as I think it would be a serious problem for app developers
> > using RCP to have to wait beyond 3.2 for *both* authentication and
> > authorization.
> > Why? Well, I suspect that many app developers will need to either a)
> > begin implementing their own authentication approaches in order to
> > create/build their apps; or b) not use RCP at all as the basis of their
> > applications. Obviously, neither a nor b are desireable from the point
> > of view of broadening equinox's usage in the app developer community.
> > So, enough speech making...I just wanted to convey to people what I
> > perceive as at least one serious need for equinox in the 3.2 timeframe.
> > I know all of you are aware of that need, so I suppose I just wanted to
> > make it clearer from the point of view of app developers that would like
> > to use equinox as the basis of new, secure, non-IDE applications.
> > Thanks for listening,
> > Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > equinox-dev mailing list
> > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> >equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev mailing list