[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-391?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12732131#action_12732131
]
Oliver Heger commented on CONFIGURATION-391:
--------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I am no expert for WAS, so I don't know whether this server does
something special which confuses Commons Configuration.
Just a guess: {{PropertiesConfiguration}} tries several locations where to look
for the file to be loaded. Maybe, due to the deployment in WAS, the file can be
found on multiple places in the class path, and the algorithm picks the wrong
place. Could this be possible?
> Double file permissions required in WAS 6.1
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CONFIGURATION-391
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-391
> Project: Commons Configuration
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.5
> Environment: - WebSphere AS 6.1with J2EE securit enabled
> - AIX
> Reporter: Stéphane Van Espen
>
> We are using Commons Configuration as follows:
> {code}
> final PropertiesConfiguration config = new
> PropertiesConfiguration("velocity.properties");
> {code}
> _Noteworthy points_:
> - properties files are embedded in JARs
> - Application is deployed in WAS 6.1, where J2EE security is activated
> (was.policy)
> *Problem is the following*:
> Two entries are necessary in _was.policy_ in order to make the application
> work.
> Example:
> {code}
> permission java.io.FilePermission "velocity.properties","read";
> permission java.io.FilePermission "/home/wasadmin/velocity.properties","read";
> {code}
> The first entry is valid.
> The second entry (with "/*home*/*wasadmin*/...") is wrong but necesarry in
> order to make WebSphere happy.
> We would like to remove this second entry (useless and less secure) from our
> was.policy.
> What could be the cause of this issue ?
> Thank you,
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
