[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12574607#action_12574607
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-3477:
----------------------------------------------
Given the way that jvm's handle principals in policy files, namely equality is
based upon the Prinicipal's class name and return from getName I think the only
conclusion is that the format of the name for Derby's SystemPrinicipal is the
common normal form of the name.
principal org.apache.derby.authentication.SystemPrinicipal "FRED"; // cnf of
fred (JDBC user name as a Java literal could be "FRED" or "fred")
principal org.apache.derby.authentication.SystemPrinicipal "fred"; // cnf of
fred ( JDBC user name as a Java literal is "\"fred\"")
principal org.apache.derby.authentication.SystemPrinicipal "[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
// cnf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( JDBC user name as a Java literal is "\"[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.
