[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] authentication vs authorization


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.


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>
        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

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,


equinox-dev mailing list