Don't include command security proxies in Bifrost/Application. #759 - #760
Don't include command security proxies in Bifrost/Application. #759#760bnordli wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
…le#686 Some code cleanup, including consistent ordering on generated proxies. Original issue: ProCoSys#45 (To get CommandSecurityProxies, reference Bifrost/Security instead of Bifrost/Application.)
|
The easiest thing and actually would avoid this being a breaking change is to make it configurable for now. Typically in the WebConfiguration there could be a flag saying something like IncludeCommandSecurityProxies - default set to true, making it a non breaking change and we could just pull it in directly |
|
But why would anyone want to keep this security problematic behavior? I can accept making it configurable via a flag, but then I would very much like to throw an exception on start-up if this flag is not set, pointing clients to an explanation why this flag must be set in order to avoid security breaches. |
|
Never mind.. I misunderstood what this was about. Agree - the way things are today, its pretty useless. Added an issue for what I think should do the trick in the long term (#785). Don't do anything with this - I'll merge it in at the the right time. |
2 participants
Some code cleanup, including consistent ordering on generated proxies.
Original issue: ProCoSys#45
(To get CommandSecurityProxies, reference Bifrost/Security instead of Bifrost/Application.)
This change is