[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3351?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13207743#comment-13207743
]
Karl Pauls commented on FELIX-3351:
-----------------------------------
Well, it is not a requirement for normal java permissions. However, the
PermissionInfo javadoc does make it a requirement. The javadoc does say:
"The fully qualified class name of the permission represented by this
PermissionInfo. The class must be a subclass of java.security.Permission and
must define a 2-argument constructor that takes a name string and an actions
string."
In other words, im not sure it should be possible to hit this problem. Im not
against adding your fix but can you give me a bit more background and maybe a
use case where you manage to specifiy a name only permission info that makes
this fail?
> Permissions.createPermission(String name, String action, Class target) Fails
> for action == null
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-3351
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3351
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Framework Security
> Affects Versions: framework.security-1.4.1
> Reporter: Bob Ziuchkovski
> Assignee: Karl Pauls
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: felix_permission_noaction.patch
>
>
> java.security.Permission has a single constructor, Permission(String name).
> While many subclasses add another constructor with sig (String name, String
> actions), this is not a requirement for Permission subclasses and custom
> permissions without the actions arg are not properly handled by
> createPermission().
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
