
| Key: |
SEC-942
|
| Type: |
Improvement
|
| Status: |
Open
|
| Priority: |
Minor
|
| Assignee: |
Unassigned
|
| Reporter: |
Erik Onnen
|
| Votes: |
0
|
| Watchers: |
0
|
|
If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
|
|
|
|
The HttpSessionContextIntegrationFilter uses a different mechanism for creating SecurityContext implementations than the SecurityContextHolder. The former calls getInstance in generateNewContext(), the latter uses the SecurityContextHolderStrategy. Initial thought is that the HTSCIF should simply refer to the SCH thereby making the creational behavior consistent.
While most applications will use the HTSCIF, this has caused me problems in tests where tests go directly to the SCH and are not operating in the context of a web request run through the HTSCIF. Users don't expect to need to change both values.
|
|
Description
|
The HttpSessionContextIntegrationFilter uses a different mechanism for creating SecurityContext implementations than the SecurityContextHolder. The former calls getInstance in generateNewContext(), the latter uses the SecurityContextHolderStrategy. Initial thought is that the HTSCIF should simply refer to the SCH thereby making the creational behavior consistent.
While most applications will use the HTSCIF, this has caused me problems in tests where tests go directly to the SCH and are not operating in the context of a web request run through the HTSCIF. Users don't expect to need to change both values. |
Show » |
|
I can see how this might potentially be a way to make things a bit cleaner (both have developed for different historical reasons) but it doesn't seem like a bug. Can you expand on what the problems were that you were encountering?