I'd like to post the minor comments suggestion as a followup patch. That
way derby-1675.diff.txt can be committed as is. And the next followup
patch will only be a comment change patch.
Does that sound reasonable ?
Thanks,
Sunitha.
Francois Orsini (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1675?page=comments#action_12433539 ]
Francois Orsini commented on DERBY-1675:
----------------------------------------
Oops - Yes this is right - I actually checked the canon's - nevermind Sunitha :)
Thanks.
Network Server should not send to client that it supports EUSRIDPWD when
running against Sun JVM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: DERBY-1675
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1675
Project: Derby
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Network Server
Affects Versions: 10.0.2.0, 10.0.2.1, 10.1.1.0, 10.2.1.0, 10.1.2.1, 10.1.3.0,
10.1.3.1
Reporter: Sunitha Kambhampati
Assigned To: Sunitha Kambhampati
Priority: Minor
Attachments: derby1675.diff.txt, derby1675.stat.txt
As part of ACCSECRD, if the server does not accept the security mechanism sent
by the client, the server will send a list of security mechanism that it
supports. Currently even when the server is running with sun jvm, it will
still send EUSRIDPWD as a sec mec that it supports, which is incorrect. The
server should test if it can support EUSRIDPWD dynamically and if it does,
only then send EURRIDPWD as an option that it supports.
see DRDAConnThread.writeACCSECRD(int)
