sungwy commented on code in PR #4409: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4409#discussion_r3324994716
########## 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: Thanks for your thoughts everyone. One follow-up direction I explored is to keep operation as describing the action, and use the intent subtype to describe the relationship between the pairwise securables. I think the main value in splitting `PairwiseTargetAuthorizationIntent` further would be to replace generic target / secondary with names that fully express the relationship between the `PolarisSecurables`. That would likely mean replacing PairwiseTargetAuthorizationIntent with a small set like: - RenameAuthorizationIntent(operation, from, to) - PolicyAttachmentAuthorizationIntent(operation, policy, attachedTo) - RoleAssignmentAuthorizationIntent(operation, role, assignee) - PrivilegeGrantAuthorizationIntent(operation, grantTarget, grantee) - possibly RootPrivilegeGrantAuthorizationIntent(operation, grantee) for the current root-scoped special case I see the value in this form, because it allows `PolarisAuthorizableOperation` to continue carrying the action, while the intent subtype expresses how the `PolarisSecurables` relate to each other. Let me know what you folks think about this approach -- 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]
