[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16046950#comment-16046950
]
Nitin Nizhawan commented on SLING-6422:
---------------------------------------
Hi [~bdelacretaz] That is an interesting point. IIUC, you mean that match
should unordered like that for privileges. I could not find "unorderedness" of
values in documentation and assumed them to be ordered since everywhere API is
using an array to store these values.
So, current method implementation assumes that values are "ordered" but not
sorted i.e. order of values is meaningful and preserved by underlying layer.
You are correct that for OOTB restrictions like rep:ntNames and rep:itemNames
the order of values does not matter. But we have written some custom
restriction providers (based on same assumption) for which order of values does
matter, so, if I make the match unordered (by either sorting or using a set)
the those restriction providers would break. TBH, now even I am not too sure if
orderedness assumption is valid.
CC: [~anchela]
> Allow for specifying oak restrictions with repoinit
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SLING-6422
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6422
> Project: Sling
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Repoinit
> Reporter: Nitin Nizhawan
> Attachments: SLING6422ApplyRestrictionsV2.patch,
> SLING6422ApplyRestrictionsV3.patch,
> SLING6422_interpretparsedrestrictionclause.patch, SLING-6422.patch
>
>
> Allow for specifying oak restrictions with repoinit. Currently repoinit
> allows one to ADD remove ACLs but there is no way to specify oak restrictions.
> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/authorization/restriction.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
