Alfresco Explorer 和 Alfresco Share 是否可以配置为使用不同的身份验证链?
现在我已经使用此身份验证链进行了 Alfresco 设置:
authentication.chain=alfinst:alfrescoNtlm,ldap1:ldap
但是,如果我可以将其用于 Alfresco Share,并将其用于 Alfresco Explorer:
authentication.chain=alfinst:alfrescoNtlm
有没有办法将这些应用程序配置为使用不同的身份验证链?如果没有,可以通过某种扩展来完成吗?
Right now I have Alfresco setup with this authentication chain:
authentication.chain=alfinst:alfrescoNtlm,ldap1:ldap
However, it would be nice if I could use that for Alfresco Share, and this for Alfresco Explorer:
authentication.chain=alfinst:alfrescoNtlm
Is there a way to configure these applications to use different authentication chains? If not, can this be done through an extension of some sort?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5906/d59060df4059a6cc364216c4d63ceec29ef7fe66" alt="扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群"
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(2)
资源管理器和 Web 脚本 URL 使用 不同的身份验证过滤器,因此您可以挂钩自定义的选择性身份验证处理。请注意:AFAICS 这不是一个完全受支持的用例,因此您最终可能会[重新]编写比您想要的更多的代码。你已被警告过,HBD。
可能的方法可能是:
将自定义过滤器映射到设置
AUTH_WEB_CLIENT
会话属性的 Explorer URL 上自定义LDAP认证组件检查是否设置了此类会话属性,如果设置则跳过认证
The Explorer and Web Scripts URLs make use of different authentication filters, therefore it's possible for you to hook in your customized selective authentication handling. Beware: AFAICS this is not a completely supported use case, you might therefore end up [re]writing more code than you wanted. You've been warned, HBD.
A possible approach might be:
having a custom filter mapped on the Explorer URLs that sets a
AUTH_WEB_CLIENT
session attributecustomizing the LDAP authentication component to check whether such a session attribute is set, and skip authentication if so
@Skuro 足够好,提供了一些很好的方法来做到这一点。就我个人而言,我更倾向于你自己的建议,特别是如果你在 Alfresco 之前有 Apache(无论如何,这是一个很好的选择)。您的建议“我们可能会重写传入的 URL...”似乎是个好主意。这样你就不必接触你的 Alfresco 链接配置,这可能会更复杂一些,所以更容易把事情搞砸。
@Skuro was nice enough to provide some nice ways to do it. Personally I'm more inclined to your own proposal, particularly if you have Apache in front of Alfresco (which is a nice-to-have, anyway). Your proposal "We could possibly rewrite incoming URLs..." seem to be good way idea. That way you don't have to touch your Alfresco chaining configuration, which can be a bit more complex, so it is easier to mess up things.