[MAGNOLIA-2718] Configuration for uriSecurityFilter and contentSecurityFilter is redundant Created: 06/May/09 Updated: 22/Mar/12 Resolved: 22/Mar/12 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Magnolia |
| Component/s: | core, security |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.5 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major |
| Reporter: | Magnolia International | Assignee: | Philipp Bärfuss |
| Resolution: | Obsolete | Votes: | 1 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Template: |
|
||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
||||||||
| Date of First Response: | |||||||||
| Description |
|
I suppose there isn't a usecase where those two filters should have different clientCallbacks. I'm not sure what the best way to go around this would be; either moving the clientCallbacks somewhere else, outside the filters, or at least by default have one of the two reference the other ? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Philipp Bärfuss [ 07/May/09 ] |
|
I prefer having a centralized configuration. /server/security/clientCallbacks would be my favorite. |
| Comment by Fabrizio Giustina [ 07/May/09 ] |
+1 for this |
| Comment by Magnolia International [ 22/Mar/12 ] |
|
Done with |