there's no reason you can't do it both. An ACL that checks for whether a certain controller action can be access by the current user can be done in an action helper. For example, is this user allowed to edit blog posts. More granualar checks can be done in a service layer, for example, can this user edit a particular blog post.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:09 AM, jThierry <thierry@jossermoz.net> wrote:
Doing that in the service layer at least prevents from having to choose
between a helper and a plugin! :-)
As you said, when it comes to needs... I find this helper a "simple"
alternative for applications/models not requiring sophisticated acls.
Actually, I hadn't really thought about where to create the acls. Doing it
in the init() method at the controller level makes it easy indeed to add
their own ones.
--
Matthew Weier O'Phinney-3 wrote:
>
> -- Seth Atkins <satkins@nortel.com> wrote
> (on Friday, 28 August 2009, 12:52 PM -0500):
>> Two main comments from my part. The first is a fairly open ended
>> question I can't answer for you. While an action helper may fit your
>> needs very well, IMHO, a successful integration is one which serves many
>> common approaches and is the least limited implementation. For example,
>> some of the comments so far have related to treating actions as
>> resources. Many people see actions as privileges on resources, and one
>> common view of what a resource is is a controller resource. If this is
>> such a person's view on the subject, an action helper seems fairly
>> limited since you are dispatching to a controller before you actually
>> check resource access. I'd rather back things up a few steps and check
>> before any particular resource is called. But that is my opinion, and I
>> do know I'm not alone there. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong
>> here, but the action helper preDispatch() method is called after the
>> controller init(), which is also after any controller preDispatch()
>> method, which is also after any plugin preDispatch methods.
>
> Close, but not quite. Order is:
>
> front controller plugin preDispatch
> action helper init()
> controller init()
> action helper preDispatch()
> controller preDispatch()
>
> The only place you can circumvent is at the plugin preDispatch(); if you
> call _forward() later, it will continue to execute through the
> controller preDispatch(); the only thing skipped will be the actual
> controller action (and postDispatch, of course).
>
>> Seems to me a lot has happened before you ever checked to see if any
>> of that should have happened in the first place.
>>
>> I am less familiar with all the things you can do with an action helper
>> and how one might wrest it to do your will. My understanding of the ZF
>> plugin architecture is more detailed since I have spent some time
>> tracing through the code, how plugins are called, when, etc. Anyway, I
>> know that plugins can do exactly what I want, but I'm less sure that an
>> action helper would fit my needs.
>
> What action helpers provide you is integration with the action
> controller. Basically, you can place metadata or methods in your action
> controllers that the action helpers can then query (or manipulate) to do
> things.
>
> Some examples of such integration:
>
> * ViewRenderer: sets the view object, as well as renders the view
> script postDispatch() based on the action executed
>
> * ContextSwitch/AjaxContext: if certain properties are set in the
> action controller, will query those to determine if a context was
> invoked, and, if so, change the view script rendered (as well as
> potentially inject response headers)
>
> Basically, what action helpers do is make it easier to place the context
> for a decision close to the decision point.
>
> However, as you note, there may be a performance cost associated with
> this.
>
>> The second comment is that plugins are called before ANY dispatching (of
>> any sort) occurs. Not even a controller init() method has been called
>> yet. I can create one plugin, set it up in Zend_Application, and all my
>> ACL code is in one place, once line of code to setup the plugin, and I'm
>> done. The plugin is post routing, so it has the filtered request object
>> to work from. You can load your rules and then feed isAllowed your
>> controller or action name, or whatever criteria you want. If you want
>> actions to be resources, fine. If you want controllers to be resources
>> and actions privileges, fine.
>>
>> And best of all, a plugin can alter the request object before
>> dispatching occurs. So I can actually redirect without "redirecting", if
>> you know what I mean, in response to access being denied.
>>
>> To sum up, I don't think an action helper would be an implementation
>> that I would personally want to use.
>
> You have valid points. The points in the proposal are also valid. They
> are very different approaches, however, and there are different
> ramifications involved with both. In your situation, you get good
> execution speed -- but at the cost of having to update ACLs and
> controllers separately. In the approach proposed, your ACLs are part of
> your application structure, making maintenance easy -- but you lose some
> performance.
>
> As I noted earlier, I personally like to put my ACLs with my service
> layer. This means that I'm actually executing my action before I find
> out if the user has the ability to do something -- probably your worst
> nightmare.
>
> However, what this affords me is the ability to re-use my service layer
> for web services -- I can create a service proxy object that I attach to
> Zend_XmlRpc_Server, Zend_Json_Server, Zend_Amf_Server, etc -- and my
> ACLs continue to work as expected. I don't have to do anything different
> whatsoever.
>
>> I have many modules, many controllers, many actions, and while, yes, I
>> could write one action helper and call it from anywhere, I'd really
>> rather not have to write 50 lines of code to just to call it from each
>> controller I happen to have. And I'd rather not instantiate a
>> controller that a person doesn't have access to in the first place.
>> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Again, as noted above: there are different approaches. Use the one that
> suits your application and/or programming needs.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jThierry [mailto:thierry@jossermoz.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:44 PM
>> To: fw-mvc@lists.zend.com
>> Subject: [fw-mvc] MVC integration of Zend_Acl
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been working on a component to realise the MVC integration of
>> Zend_Acl which is different from the proposal
>> (http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=39025) that
>> seems to be on hold.
>>
>> I'm using an action helper the perform the checks at pre dispatch time
>> on controllers implementing Zend_Acl_Resource_Interface instead of a
>> plugin and am wondering if there's any underlying reason that would
>> encourage the use of a plugin.
>>
>> I would really much appreciate your feedback on the action helper
>> approach.
>>
>> The code can be found there: http://code.google.com/p/oolala/
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thierry
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/MVC-integration-of-Zend_Acl-tp25183254p25183254.ht
>> ml
>> Sent from the Zend MVC mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> Project Lead | matthew@zend.com
> Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/
>
>
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/MVC-integration-of-Zend_Acl-tp25183254p25212360.html
Sent from the Zend MVC mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
没有评论:
发表评论