Thanks Scott... it was late and I don't think I was thinking so clearly after having my head in the ProxyCompiler for hours and hours. We can probably use doOutput and doInput to indicate the perms?
--jason Scott M Stark wrote: >It is a simple method that returns the permission one would have to >add to a security policy to allow the connection to be made and used. >Since you support both input and output streams you need read and >write permissions: > >new FilePermission(path, "read,write"); > >The current implementation is suffering from delusions of persecution or >something so I fixed it. You may want to drop the OutputStream support >as this increases the permission requirements to write and you don't need >this for the modified timestamp check. > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Scott Stark >Chief Technology Officer >JBoss Group, LLC >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Jules Gosnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:31 PM >Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] (Jason) file protocol handler.... > > >>Oh... sorry. Not sure what the thing todo here is. We can either >>generate a FilePermission which uses the underlying File.canRead(), >>blah, blah, blah or we can simply omit this field and have the default >>AllPermision be used. >> >>Probably easier in the short term todo the later... though I think that >>might be wrong with respect to the security model... Scott? >> >>For now I will just comment out the method. >> >>--jason >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Jboss-development mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
