Ticket #1263 (closed planned_task: obsolete)
S2S_FACADE_SECURITY_R0
| Reported by: | Astea | Owned by: | meddle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | 3 | Milestone: | M04_PRE4 |
| Component: | S2S_FACADE | Version: | 2.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Category: | unknown | Effort: | 1 |
| Importance: | 0 | Ticket_group: | |
| Estimated Number of Hours: | Add Hours to Ticket: | ||
| Billable?: | Total Hours: | ||
| Analysis_owners: | meddle | Design_owners: | meddle |
| Imp._owners: | meddle | Test_owners: | |
| Analysis_reviewers: | pav | Changelog: | |
| Design_reviewers: | pav | Imp._reviewers: | pap |
| Test_reviewers: | Analysis_score: | 4.5 | |
| Design_score: | 4 | Imp._score: | 4 |
| Test_score: | 0 |
Description
wiki page: S2S_FACADE_SECURITY_R0 - effort: 1d
Change History
comment:1 Changed 16 years ago by meddle
- Category set to unknown
- Status changed from new to s1a_analysis_started
- Analysis_score set to 0
- Test_score set to 0
- Design_score set to 0
- Owner changed from Astea to meddle
- Imp._score set to 0
- Analysis_owners set to meddle
comment:2 Changed 16 years ago by meddle
- Status changed from s1a_analysis_started to s1b_analysis_finished
Done (30m).
comment:3 Changed 16 years ago by pav
- Status changed from s1b_analysis_finished to s1c_analysis_ok
- Analysis_reviewers set to pav
- Analysis_score changed from 0 to 4.5
It looks pretty good! May be you could link to the S2S_DEPLOY_TECHNOLOGIES_R0 again because of its deployment diagram but it is not necessary. I hope that the effort will be enough.
comment:4 Changed 16 years ago by meddle
- Design_owners set to meddle
- Status changed from s1c_analysis_ok to s2a_design_started
comment:5 Changed 16 years ago by meddle
- Status changed from s2a_design_started to s2b_design_finished
Design finished (3h and 40m).
comment:6 Changed 16 years ago by pav
- Status changed from s2b_design_finished to s2c_design_ok
- Design_reviewers set to pav
It seems reasonable for the schema to look in this way and there are many clear tests. I don't really undestand why the program you use puts "class" word in the beginning of the diagram but this is not important for the task:)
comment:8 Changed 16 years ago by meddle
- Status changed from s2c_design_ok to s3a_implementation_started
comment:9 Changed 16 years ago by meddle
- Status changed from s3a_implementation_started to s3b_implementation_finished
Implementation done (3h).
comment:10 Changed 16 years ago by pap
- Cc meddle added
- Status changed from s3b_implementation_finished to s3c_implementation_ok
- Imp._score changed from 0 to 4
- Imp._reviewers set to pap
I consider this a relatively well done old task but I have some remarks on it:
- First the extension point in the server.connector module is not well done
- I think it is a good idea to write in the JavaDoc that mock things are meant to be used in tests.
- I think that the saveUser method in the UserManager interface has inconistent arguments compared to othr methods. Perhaps it will not be bad to take the sessionId or otherwise mention how the user is identified in the JavaDoc.
- Also you do not make much use of the ProLib which might not be such a serious problem in this revision.
comment:13 Changed 15 years ago by deyan
- Status changed from s3c_implementation_ok to closed
- Resolution set to obsolete
Batch update from file query-obsoleted.csv
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
