flyrain commented on code in PR #4409: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4409#discussion_r3321495771
########## polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/auth/PairwiseTargetAuthorizationIntent.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.polaris.core.auth; + +import com.google.common.base.Preconditions; +import org.apache.polaris.core.entity.PolarisEntityType; +import org.jspecify.annotations.NonNull; +import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable; + +/** + * Authorization intent for operations that may carry both a primary target and a related secondary + * target. + * + * <p>The primary target may be omitted for legacy root-scoped flows that rely on an implicit root + * primary plus an explicit secondary target. + */ +public record PairwiseTargetAuthorizationIntent( Review Comment: The benefit of a RenameAuthorizationIntent is that the securable names (`from`, `to`) carry semantic meaning, which is nice. If we go down that path, we would likely need additional intent types as well, such as `GrantPrivilegeAuthorizationIntent` and `AttachPolicyAuthorizationIntent`. I like the idea of "striking a balance between intent expressiveness and reusability". The number of intent types will also directly impact the amount of subtype handling required downstream, which can be a overhead when we add more intents. For now, I think `PairwiseAuthorizationIntent` is a reasonable compromise. That said, I could be convinced if we identify stronger use cases that would benefit from more specialized intent types. An alternative would be to document the semantics on the operation itself, for example: `for rename operations, the first securable represents the source (from) and the second represents the destination (to).` -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
