[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-9675?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Eric Norman resolved OAK-9675.
------------------------------
Fix Version/s: (was: 1.44.0)
Resolution: Abandoned
[~angela] It is very clear that this isn't my private fork, but apparently the
main branch is your private code. I don't understand the reluctance to accept
a fully-optional, non-breaking, safe and 100% tested contribution to the
project. I thought oak was an open source project so why are my requirements
less important than yours?
I'm withdrawing my contribution from consideration, please don't use any of the
code from my PR in your product. I won't make the mistake of trying to
contribute to the oak project again.
> Configuration option for allowed authorizable properties mixin types
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-9675
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-9675
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core, security-spi
> Reporter: Eric Norman
> Assignee: Angela Schreiber
> Priority: Major
>
> This is in support of a use case where we want a stricter value constraint on
> what is allowed to be stored in an authorizable property. The unstructured
> property definition from rep:Authorizable is too permissive for the use case.
> Defining and using a mixin with a property definition that has a value
> constraint defined solves most of the use case, but after doing that then
> the property is no longer visible in the authorizable properties.
> Basically, the current implementation of
> AuthorizablePropertiesImpl#getAuthorizableProperty will exclude any
> properties whose property definition is not declared by the rep:Authorizable
> node type. This means property definitions that are defined by any mixin
> type are excluded.
> The proposed improvement here is to add an optional configuration property
> that would define the names of mixin types that are allowed to define
> authorizable properties. Any property definition defined by a mixin type in
> this set would be included, and anything else would be excluded as before.
>
> NOTE: This is applicable only to the properties stored in the root user/group
> home node. Any properties defined under subnodes are not affected by this
> configuration as those properties were not being excluded the same way that
> the properties on the root home node were.
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
