On 1/10/06, David W. Van Couvering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
ansiAuthMode (not AuthoMode) sounds good to me, I agree that there is a
false sense of security around the term secureMode. How secure is
secure? And this is just about authentication and authorization,
necessary but not necessarily sufficient in terms of security.
David
Francois Orsini wrote:
> Agreed - I have had the same reserve but could not really come up with a
> better name ;)
>
> Although I was thinking of 'ansiAuthorizationMode' (for ANSI
> authorization mode) or 'ansiAuthoMode'
>
> On 1/10/06, *Daniel John Debrunner* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> I'm still thinking about this 'secureMode' approach and the interaction
> with the existing authentication model. One issue I do have is the name
> of the attribute, 'secureMode'. I don't believe that the current
> grant/revoke syntax makes Derby completely secure, thus this attribute
> may mislead people. Note sure I have a better name though. :-(
>
> Dan.
>
>
