Section 15.3.2 of the EJB 1.1 specification states:
"The method permissions relation is defined as the union of all the
method permissions defined in the individual method-permission
elements."
Does this mean that more specific method permissions DO NOT override
more general method permissions? (An example scenario is shown at the
bottom of this e-mail)
I need an answer to this question this morning if possible from a Sun
authority on EJB 1.1. I post the question here so that the entire
community can benefit.
Thanks,
Richard
--
Richard Monson-Haefel
EJB Expert for jGuru.com
( http://www.jguru.com )
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans
Published by O'Reilly & Associates
( http://www.ejbnow.com )
**********
Example:
<method-permission>
<role-name>Manager</role-name>
<method>
<ejb-name>Account</ejb-name>
<method-name>*</method-name>
</method>
</method-permission>
<method-permission>
<role-name>Teller</role-name>
<method>
<ejb-name>Account</ejb-name>
<method-name>transfer</method-name>
</method>
</method-permission>
Would "union" mean that both the "Teller" and "Manager" role can access
the transfer method?
************
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
