The improvement issue is here
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-4554
I would recommend to keep the file format consistent. Now we have
users.properties
#This is the admnistrator (as well as whoever else has the ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR attached)
admin=geoserver,ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR
#These are sample users you may uncomment if you want to test locking down wfs (see service.properties)
#wfst=wfst,ROLE_WFS_READ,ROLE_WFS_WRITE
#wfs=wfs,ROLE_WFS_READ
user1a=pwd,ROLE_INDIVIDUAL
user1b=pwd
user2a=pwd
user2b=pwd
I would add
groups.properties
#Format: group name and a comma separated list of users
admins,admin
groupa,user1a,user2a
groupb,user1b,user2b
and
group2roles.properties
#Format: group name and a comma separated list of roles
admins,ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR
groupa,ROLE_WFS_READ,ROLE_WFS_WRITE
groupb,ROLE_WFS_READ
The upgrade path is simple. If the 2 files are not there (in the same directory as users.properties), I would generate them with some comment lines explaining the format.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
In terms of keeping things consistent what about using an = syntax for groups.properties and group2roles.properties? Seems more consistent with users.properties. Seems to make more sense give that the file is a .properties file as well. Or maybe we should change the extension to .csv? 
No strong opinion… i can just see myself always trying to remember what the format of the particular file is. Guess that is what the comments are for. Super minor but in terms of file naming aesthetics maybe something like group_roles is better than group2roles.
2c.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:26 AM, <christian.mueller@anonymised.com> wrote:
The improvement issue is here
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-4554
I would recommend to keep the file format consistent. Now we have
users.properties
#This is the admnistrator (as well as whoever else has the
ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR attached)
admin=geoserver,ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR
#These are sample users you may uncomment if you want to test locking
down wfs (see service.properties)
#wfst=wfst,ROLE_WFS_READ,ROLE_WFS_WRITE
#wfs=wfs,ROLE_WFS_READ
user1a=pwd,ROLE_INDIVIDUAL
user1b=pwd
user2a=pwd
user2b=pwd
I would add
groups.properties
#Format: group name and a comma separated list of users
admins,admin
groupa,user1a,user2a
groupb,user1b,user2b
and
group2roles.properties
#Format: group name and a comma separated list of roles
admins,ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR
groupa,ROLE_WFS_READ,ROLE_WFS_WRITE
groupb,ROLE_WFS_READ
The upgrade path is simple. If the 2 files are not there (in the same
directory as users.properties), I would generate them with some
comment lines explaining the format.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability
What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know.
Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools
to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.comsts.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
–
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Good proposal, since I use the file extension properties it should look like
groups.properties
group1=user1,user2,....
and
group_roles.properties
group1=ROLE_A,ROLE_B
Looking into the java doc, you can substitute = with :
Anyways, it is a good idea to use the property file syntax.
Quoting Justin Deoliveira <jdeolive@anonymised.com>:
In terms of keeping things consistent what about using an = syntax for
groups.properties and group2roles.properties? Seems more consistent with
users.properties. Seems to make more sense give that the file is a
.properties file as well. Or maybe we should change the extension to .csv?
No strong opinion... i can just see myself always trying to remember what
the format of the particular file is. Guess that is what the comments are
for. Super minor but in terms of file naming aesthetics maybe something like
group_roles is better than group2roles.
2c.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:26 AM, <christian.mueller@anonymised.com> wrote:
The improvement issue is here
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-4554
I would recommend to keep the file format consistent. Now we have
users.properties
#This is the admnistrator (as well as whoever else has the
ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR attached)
admin=geoserver,ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR
#These are sample users you may uncomment if you want to test locking
down wfs (see service.properties)
#wfst=wfst,ROLE_WFS_READ,ROLE_WFS_WRITE
#wfs=wfs,ROLE_WFS_READ
user1a=pwd,ROLE_INDIVIDUAL
user1b=pwd
user2a=pwd
user2b=pwd
I would add
groups.properties
#Format: group name and a comma separated list of users
admins,admin
groupa,user1a,user2a
groupb,user1b,user2b
and
group2roles.properties
#Format: group name and a comma separated list of roles
admins,ROLE_ADMINISTRATOR
groupa,ROLE_WFS_READ,ROLE_WFS_WRITE
groupb,ROLE_WFS_READ
The upgrade path is simple. If the 2 files are not there (in the same
directory as users.properties), I would generate them with some
comment lines explaining the format.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability
What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know.
Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools
to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.