[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6469?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16092817#comment-16092817
]
angela commented on OAK-6469:
-----------------------------
[~stillalex], the patch looks good... just one thing i spotted:
the implementation of {{getTreePermission(Tree, TreePermission)}} doesn't look
right to me now as it hardcoces the {{TreeType}}. I don't think that is correct.
{code}
public TreePermission getTreePermission(@Nonnull Tree tree, @Nonnull
TreePermission parentPermission) {
return getTreePermission(tree, TreeType.DEFAULT, parentPermission);
}
{code}
consequently also the generation of the composite-treepermission for the root
node changed from
{code}
if (tree.isRoot()) {
return CompositeTreePermission.create(immutableTree, typeProvider,
pps, compositionType);
}
{code}
to
{code}
if (tree.isRoot()) {
return CompositeTreePermission.create(immutableTree, type,
typeProvider, pps, compositionType);
}
{code}
not sure if it makes a difference but i would not change that very detail
unless there is a compelling reason. otherwise the patch looks fine to me
(still don't recall the reason for not implementing it... argh).
> CompositePermissionProvider should implement AggregatedPermissionProvider
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-6469
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6469
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core, security
> Reporter: Alex Deparvu
> Assignee: Alex Deparvu
> Attachments: OAK-6469.patch
>
>
> A more in-depth followup of OAK-6451. It turns out you can't mix CUG setup
> with the Multiplexing setup because the {{CompositePermissionProvider}}
> cannot contain another composite.
> Making {{CompositePermissionProvider}} implement
> {{AggregatedPermissionProvider}} opens the door for composites of composites.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
