Re: wildcard authz docs question

Johan, et. al.: Solid discussion - thank you. As I said, I'll keep a watch as things progress... Cheers. Doug On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Doug Robinson > wrote: > > > > Johan: > >

Re: wildcard authz docs question

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Doug Robinson > wrote: >> >> Johan: >> >> Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit hectic here. >> >> Reply buried deep below. >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at

Re: wildcard authz docs question

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Doug Robinson wrote: > > Johan: > > Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit hectic here. > > Reply buried deep below. > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Brane: Right! And this is likely why the AuthZ implementation today for "/**" governs both the "file" and "directory" since it can't know. Given this, I'd like to keep the current behavior (that's in the branch for 1.8 and 1.9) as it "works". Thank you. Doug On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:22 AM,

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Johan: Sorry for my sporadic replies... bin a bit hectic here. Reply buried deep below. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson > wrote: > > > > Johan: > > > > (sorry for the empty

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:09:33 +0200: > Come to think of it: if reserving a namespace for future use, and > "/iota" doesn't exist yet, can't you just block the name "/iota" > without glob pattern? It doesn't exist anyway, so if you'd like to > create some subtree under it,

Re: wildcard authz docs question

On 05.05.2017 11:09, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson > wrote: >> Johan: >> >> (sorry for the empty message - dwim failed) >> >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at

Re: wildcard authz docs question

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Doug Robinson wrote: > > Johan: > > (sorry for the empty message - dwim failed) > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Johan: (sorry for the empty message - dwim failed) On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400: > ... > >> Not seeing

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Johan: On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400: > ... > >> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, May 04, 2017 at 13:26:30 +0200: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400: > ... > >> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE needed to handle > >> this

Re: wildcard authz docs question

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400: ... >> Not seeing it - at least not yet. In Perl the RE needed to handle >> this would be one of the duals, e.g. "/trunk/iota(|/.*)" - the >> either/or

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Doug Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 15:54:50 -0400: > Daniel: > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > > Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, May 01, 2017 at 14:20:16 +: > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Daniel: On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, May 01, 2017 at 14:20:16 +: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Doug Robinson wrote on Mon, May 01, 2017 at 14:20:16 +: > Daniel: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200: > > > On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > >>From the 1.10 draft

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Daniel: On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 21:13 Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200: > > On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > >>From the 1.10 draft release notes: > > > > > >>All wildcards apply to full path segments only,

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:22:33 +0200: > On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >>From the 1.10 draft release notes: > > > >>All wildcards apply to full path segments only, i.e. * never matches > >>/, except for the case where /**/ matches zero or more path segments. >

Re: wildcard authz docs question

On 15.03.2017 10:55, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >From the 1.10 draft release notes: All wildcards apply to full path segments only, i.e. * never matches /, except for the case where /**/ matches zero or more path segments. For example, /*/**/* will match any path which contains at least 2 segments

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Daniel: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Doug Robinson wrote on Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:05:53 -0400: > > That said, in discussions I've had I think about the SVN regex "**" > > differently than the zsh construct. The way that I interpret "/**" is

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Doug Robinson wrote on Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:05:53 -0400: > Daniel: > > Sorry for the delay - I missed the post. No worries. > That said, in discussions I've had I think about the SVN regex "**" > differently than the zsh construct. The way that I interpret "/**" is > "everything below and

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Daniel: Sorry for the delay - I missed the post. And, I'm going to recant my original conclusion - my apologies for not treating this with sufficient vigor the 1st time around. Wow - it's been a long time since I played with zsh. Yep, I see the reference to "‘***/*’ is equivalent to

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Doug Robinson wrote on Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:40:50 -0400: > Daniel: > > The shell's all treat ** as * and require that it match something. So > "mkdir -p foo/bar/baz" would match. > > No command shell that I know of (sh,bash,zsh,tcsh,csh,ksh) has a > moral equivalent to "zero or more path

Re: wildcard authz docs question

Daniel: The shell's all treat ** as * and require that it match something. So "mkdir -p foo/bar/baz" would match. I would expect "/*/**/*", "/**/*/*" and "/*/*/**" to all match exactly the same sets of components. No command shell that I know of (sh,bash,zsh,tcsh,csh,ksh) has a moral

wildcard authz docs question

>From the 1.10 draft release notes: > All wildcards apply to full path segments only, i.e. * never matches > /, except for the case where /**/ matches zero or more path segments. > For example, /*/**/* will match any path which contains at least > 2 segments and is equivalent to /**/*/* as well