[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12573538#action_12573538
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3477:
----------------------------------------------
I reproduced the behaviour described in DERBY-2109 with the JVM using the
principal_name from the policy file as-is and not obeying the semantics of the
Principal implementation. I investigated some more and ended up asking a
question over on [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Here's the thread, no replies yet:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200802.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> Make format principal names in SystemPermission (e.g. policy files) match the
> standard way Derby handles authorization identifiers in a Java context.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3477
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3477
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Security
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
>
> Expected format described in:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?focusedCommentId=12561537#action_12561537
>
> Comments in DERBY--2109 around patch 10 indicate some issue around
> implementing this, it would be good to see the code that attempted to
> implement it to help figure out the problem.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
