Hello.
Actually, I don't know whether there exists concrete necessary of different
security policy for same jar file in the test.
Then, I think it is sufficient that we know there is nothing to stop walkround
when it was needed .
Best regards.
/*
Tomohito Nakayama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naka
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
*/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel John Debrunner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for change in test harness & security manager
TomohitoNakayama wrote:
Hello.
Just to confirm my understanding ....
I read your proposal as defining security policies for each jar files.
Correct.
Does the proposal assume that the same jar file is always executed in
same security environments in the test ?
My goal is to ensure that running derbyall tests all Derby's
functionality works with a security manager and a correctly, minimally
configured policy file. By minimally I mean just the fewset set of
permissions required, hopefully in-line with the documentation. E.g. a
policy file that allowed all permissions would work but would not be a
good test of Derby.
Other tests could be added with different policy files, or run existing
tests with a different policy file, like some tests are run with
encryption as well as without encryption. Some enhancments would be
needed to the test harness for this. I'm not scratching that itch,
though I believe nothing I doing would stop such development.
Thanks,
Dan.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 2005/10/09
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 2005/10/09
