>>>>> "KLM" == Ken Manheimer <klm@digicool.com> writes: KLM> It may well make sense to have the system *implement* the KLM> rights somewhere else. (Distributed system, permissions caches KLM> in an object system, etc.) However it seems to me to make KLM> exceeding sense to have the initial intrinsic settings KLM> specified as part of the object! It's not clear to me that the person writing the code is or should be the person specifying the security policy. I believe the CORBA security model separates policy definition into three parts -- security attributes, required rights, and policy domains. The developer would only be responsible for the first part -- the security attributes, which describe methods in a general way so that a security administrators can develop an effective policy for it. I suppose that function attributes would be a sensible way to do this, but it might also be accomplished with a separate wrapper object. I'm still not thrilled with the idea of using regular attribute access to describe static properties on code. To access the properties, yes, to define and set them, probably not. Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4