Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.62.0

[x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.62.0 kind regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 22:57 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.62.0 Please vote on releasing this

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.58.0

+1 kind regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 06:01 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.58.0 EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments. A candidate for the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.54.0

+1 thanks a lot angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 18:56 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.54.0 A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.54.0 release is available at:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.16

hi julian +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.16 kind regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 07:38 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.16 A candidate for the

Re: Moving to Oak 1.50 or newer

} } } else { LOG.warn("Unused policy " + policy.getClass().getName()); } } Best Regards. Jorge El jue, 1 jun 2023 a las 8:43, Angela Schreiber () escribió: > Hi Jorge > > I would recommend sticking with JCR/Jackrabbit API again, but I admit that > I am

Re: Moving to Oak 1.50 or newer

:) Thank you. I have a question, I have some other similar code that gets the entries (List). In that case I guess I should still use cast to ImmutableACL? Regards. Jorge El jue, 1 jun 2023 a las 2:19, Angela Schreiber () escribió: > Hi Jorge > > Yes, that has changed with OAK-10135

Re: Moving to Oak 1.50 or newer

Hi Jorge Yes, that has changed with OAK-10135 for consistency reasons. Instead of casting to a spi class (ImmutableAcl) or checking for that one, I would suggest you verify that the given effective policy is a JackrabbitAccessControlPolicy.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.52.0

+1 kind regards and thanks a lot for take care of the release angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 18:52 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.52.0 A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.52.0

Re: Referential Integrity of Access Control Policies

Hi Konrad There exists no automatic cleanup for access control entries bound to a specific principal or path. If the tree where the policy is stored gets deleted (or any of it's parents for that matter) the policy node will be removed. This may or may not be the access-controlled tree where

Re: How to check if user is anonymous

Hi Konrad There is no public API to check that as it is an implementation detail that the unauthenticated guest session is in oak backed by a user. So, I suspect the question you want to have an answer for is whether a given JCR session is an unauthenticated guest session or not. Is that

Re: OAK-7182: Make it possible to update Guava

ciao julian the plan sound reasonable to me it's overdue that we get this done, so any progress is good IMHO. kind regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 11:51 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: OAK-7182: Make it

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.48.0

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.48.0 all checks ok kind regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:12 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.48.0 EXTERNAL: Use

Re: Jackrabbit Oak 1.48.0 Release Plan

@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Jackrabbit Oak 1.48.0 Release Plan EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments. On 19.01.2023 14:25, Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Julian > > I would like to include one more fix and verify a couple of things for 1.48.0 > Unless it is

Re: Jackrabbit Oak 1.48.0 Release Plan

Hi Julian I would like to include one more fix and verify a couple of things for 1.48.0 Unless it is super urgent, I would suggest postponing it for one week. Please let me know if that would work. Kind regards Angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Thursday,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.14

+1 angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 16:41 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org ; resc...@apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.14 [X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.14 [INFO]

Re: Authorisation Restrictions: When are those evaluated?

re those evaluated? EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments. Thanks Angela for the response and happy new year to you as well > On 10. Jan 2023, at 10:27, Angela Schreiber wrote: > > the current restriction API does not allow to limit to/for certain

Re: Authorisation Restrictions: When are those evaluated?

hi konrad happy new year and sorry for the delay in responding! restrictions are part of the permission evaluation. so read operations will respect restrictions upon access of items and write operations are checked by the PermissionValidator (i.e. during commit). there are one or two limited

Re: Unresolved Conflict Question

://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/pull/786. Best Regards. Jorge El mar, 15 nov 2022 a las 7:52, Angela Schreiber () escribió: > hi jorge > > imho this would be a great addition to the oak documentation e.g. linked > into the section https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/dos_and_donts.ht

Re: Unresolved Conflict Question

hi jorge imho this would be a great addition to the oak documentation e.g. linked into the section https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/dos_and_donts.html would it be possible for you to create ticket and a PR for oak-doc? kind regards angela From: Jorge

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.44.0

+1 kind regards angela From: Marcel Reutegger Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 5:16 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.44.0 Hi, A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.44.0 release is available at:

Re: OAK-9712: blob-cloud-azure instead of segment-azure?

hi regarding missing license headers: would it be an option to run the check as part of the default build? i usually build oak multiple times before pushing any changes and having the license header check included would help me. wdyt? angela From: Miroslav

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.11

[x ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.11 kind regards angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:39 AM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.11 A candidate for the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.26

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.26 all checks ok kind regards angela From: Miroslav Smiljanic Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 10:46 AM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.26

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.10

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.10 all checks ok kind regards angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:55 AM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.10 [X]

Re: Property "rep:fullname" on rep:User nodes

Hi Konrad The default value doesn't make sense IMHO and should not have been added in the first place. It is however covered by the node type of users/groups as they allow for arbitrary properties being written below the user node (or some subtree for that matter). I would be a bit reluctant

Re: Oak-it-osgi module

” classifier)? Regards, Carlo From: Angela Schreiber Date: Tuesday, 18 January 2022 at 08:43 To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Oak-it-osgi module Hi Carlo The oak-it-osgi module is IMHO not particularly well maintained and I would rather add the tests to the very modules the belong

Re: Oak-it-osgi module

Hi Carlo The oak-it-osgi module is IMHO not particularly well maintained and I would rather add the tests to the very modules the belong to. Kind regards Angela From: Carlo Jelmini Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 4:15 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org

Re: Check if a node has children NOT matching a pattern

Hi Jörg Thanks a lot for reaching out. IMHO it makes sense to have this reported as feature request for jackrabbit-api as there is no easy way to extend the existing JCR Node API contract. There already exists a JackrabbitNode interface in oak-jackrabbit-api, which we could use to add the new

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.42.0

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.42.0 kind regards angela From: Miroslav Smiljanic Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 1:04 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.42.0 Hi All, A candidate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.22

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.22 kind regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:44 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.22 A candidate for the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.25

hi nitin [x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.25 thanks and kind regards angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 1:48 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.25 A candidate for

Re: trunk compile fails

Hi Marco I just ran the oak build again and it passed. However, I vaguely remember having seen that very test failing in the past. Would you mind creating a JIRA ticket? I think it makes sense for the segment teams to take a look. Kind regards Angela From:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.9

​+1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.9 kind regards angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:36 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.9 A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.8

hi IMHO we should not vote on a release if everyone is requied to manually alter the check-release.sh in order to verify that the checks are ok. kind regards angela From: Marcel Reutegger Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:14 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.40.0

all checks ok +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.40.0 kind regards anggela From: Miroslav Smiljanic Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:49 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.40.0 Hi All, A candidate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.21

all checks were ok +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.21 kind regards angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:12 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.21 A candidate for the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.7

+1 All checks ok From: Marcel Reutegger Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 12:49 PM To: Oak devs Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.7 Hi, A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.7 release is available at:

Re: User created date property

Hi Jorge Your observation is correct: Authorizable.getProperty filters out properties in the jcr or rep namespace and only returns properties that could also be set using Authorizable.setProperty. If you add mix:created to a given user node (IMHO that is allowed) to have the jcr:created

Re: Jackrabbit Oak 1.38.0 release plan

Am 21.01.2021 um 15:47 schrieb Angela Schreiber: > hi julian > > so far i didn't manage to reproduce the test failure you describe in > OAK-9324<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-9324> and nor did i see it > failing in the integration. so, not sure this should bl

Re: Jackrabbit Oak 1.38.0 release plan

hi julian so far i didn't manage to reproduce the test failure you describe in OAK-9324 and nor did i see it failing in the integration. so, not sure this should block the release given that it might be limited to windows. also note: the ticket

Re: When to update the documentation

hi same here... for new features i usually refer to jira or the released version to clarify that it's not available in older versions. if i remember correctly we discussed this in the past. afaik the conclusion was back then that the documentation should reflect the latest trunk as we don't

Intent to backport OAK-8769

Hi I intend to backport task "OAK-8769 : oak-auth-ldap pom needs maintenance" to the 1.22 branch. The fix (among other things) updates the following dependencies to more recent versions: org.apache.directory.api:all-api, org.apache.mina:mina-core Let me know if you have any concerns. Kind

Re: [filevault] Installing users and access control entries in the same package

Subject: Re: [filevault] Installing users and access control entries in the same package Hi Angela, On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 07:39 +, Angela Schreiber wrote: > hi robert > > without having a closer look, i would suspect that your repository > comes with default import-behavior c

Re: [filevault] Installing users and access control entries in the same package

hi robert without having a closer look, i would suspect that your repository comes with default import-behavior configuration that strictly follows JCR specification which mandates a given principal to exist when dealing with access control management. oak comes with a variety of

Re: Slow performance in AbstractNodeState.equals

28.07.2020 um 10:10 schrieb Angela Schreiber: > Hi Alexander > > Thanks for the detailed report and analysis. > May I suggest that you create a ticket at > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OAK/issues > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OAK/issues> with component &g

Re: Node type definition update

Hi Philipp Looking at the code of NodeTypeRegistry.register it also ends up calling NodeTypeManager.registerNodeTypes. Without having a closer look I would expect this to work the same. But there might be subtle differences, which I am not aware of that explain the difference. Would you be

Re: Slow performance in AbstractNodeState.equals

Hi Alexander Thanks for the detailed report and analysis. May I suggest that you create a ticket at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OAK/issues with component documentmk providing all the details and attaching the patch? I think that's the best way to move forward. Unfortunately, I am

Re: Multiple property definition for same property

rNodeType(repositoryTypeTemplate, true); session.save(); Is there any chance you could provide a patch to fix the bug you reported? > That might help getting it addressed. > I will try to look at the source code, in case I find a solution I will let you know. Regards. Jorge El mar., 23 jun. 2

Re: Multiple property definition for same property

ideas are welcome :) Regards. Jorge El mié., 18 mar. 2020 a las 11:19, jorgeeflorez . (< jorgeeduardoflo...@gmail.com>) escribió: > Hi Angela, > thank you for your help. I created > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8961. > > Regards. > > Jorge > > El mié., 18

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.22

hi nitin the checks were all ok when running checkout from https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit however, i noticed that the verification of previous releases were executed from https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/jackrabbit. is there a particular reason for cutting this

Re: backport OAK-9059 to 1.10 and 1.22

Cc: Angela Schreiber Subject: Re: backport OAK-9059 to 1.10 and 1.22 On 14.05.2020 13:13, Angela Schreiber wrote: > hi > > i intend to backport the fix for OAK-9059 to the 1.10 and 1.22 branches. the > risk should be very limited as it only requires m

backport OAK-9059 to 1.10 and 1.22

hi i intend to backport the fix for OAK-9059 to the 1.10 and 1.22 branches. the risk should be very limited as it only requires modifications to o.a.j.oak.spi.security.authorization.cug.impl.NestedCugHook. let me know i you have any concerns. kind regards angela

Re: Edit group

Hi Jorge I am glad that you found the answer, which is pretty much exactly what I would have written in reply to your original question had I seen it. Please apologize that it was totally missed. Maybe I can also point you to the oak-exercise module, which contains additional training

Re: Multiple property definition for same property

Hi Jorge That sounds like a bug to me... after all you will not be able to set multiple properties that have exactly the same PropertyDefinition and as far as I remember it should not even be possible to create multiple properties with the same name. Can you create a bug for this in JIRA? As

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.21

Hi Julian I got the following error during step 6: [INFO] 6. Build the release candidate [INFO] [INFO]Running the Maven build: mvn clean verify -Ppedantic [INFO] [ERROR] NOT OK: mvn clean verify -Ppedantic [ERROR] [ERROR] See ./target/jackrabbit-oak-1.8.21.log for full details. and from

Re: Using Oak External User Sync for a SAML2 Use Case?

Hi Cris I think you have 2 options: * either you synchronize the users/groups in the authentication handler * or you delegate the user/group synchronization to the sync-handler At Adobe we initially used the first option and moved away from it in favor of the second option, because the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.2

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.2 all checks ok kind regards angela From: Nitin Gupta Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:25 AM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.2 A candidate for the

Re: custom authentication module

Hi Marco Probably not but I am not aware of another solution from the top of my head. If you find one please let me know. Kind regards Angela From: Marco Piovesana Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:40 AM To: Angela Schreiber Cc: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org

Re: add ACE containing restrictions throws exception

. Marco. On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Marco > > I vaguely remember that the verification for the read-only status of a > checked-in versionable node does not include the built-in access control > content. But I don't recall if that because the specifi

Re: custom authentication module

9 for > the documentation update. > > Marco. > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 6:50 PM Angela Schreiber > wrote: > >> Hi Marco >> >> The section you are referring to talks about replacing the authentication >> setup altogether... so replacing all part

Re: add ACE containing restrictions throws exception

Hi Marco I vaguely remember that the verification for the read-only status of a checked-in versionable node does not include the built-in access control content. But I don't recall if that because the specification mandates this or if it's a bug. But the error you get is expected: a

Re: custom authentication module

Hi Marco The section you are referring to talks about replacing the authentication setup altogether... so replacing all parts of it. However, if your task is 'just' to configure an additional LoginModule or replacing an existing one (but otherwise leaving the broader authentication setup in

Re: custom restrictions on ACEs

ry limited, or there are other things that might decrease the performances? On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 5:25 PM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Marco > > Depending on what you wish to achieve the restrictions may help. I am not > sure if fully understood what you are aiming for so i

Re: custom restrictions on ACEs

Hi Marco Depending on what you wish to achieve the restrictions may help. I am not sure if fully understood what you are aiming for so it's a bit hard to tell if restrictions will really do the trick. Depending on the actual needs and how well your access control requirements fit into the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.26

[x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.26 all checks ok regards angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 3:00 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.4.26 A candidate for the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.1

[x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.1 all checks ok angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2020 6:29 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.22.1 A candidate for the Jackrabbit

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.20

[x] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.20 all checks ok angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:54 AM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.6.20 A candidate for the Jackrabbit

intend to backport OAK-8855

hi i would like to back port the fix for OAK-8855. let me know if you have any concerns. kind regards angela

Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 1.22.0

as far as the security area is concerned the only significant diff between 1.22 and 1.24. Kind regards Angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:44 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org ; Angela Schreiber Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 1.22.0

Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 1.22.0

Hi Julian Not sure I got the explanation regarding 'why not branching 1.24.0' in relation to the required changes regarding OAK-7947. According to jira that issue got fix in 1.12.0, right? So isn't the same

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.20

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.20 all checks were ok. kind regards angela From: Woonsan Ko Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:07 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.8.20 [X] +1

Intent to backport OAK-8870

Hi I'd like to backport OAK-8870 [1] to the maintenance branches. The fix is simple and I consider the risk associated with the backport as low. Let me know if you have any concerns. Kind regards Angela [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8870

Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10

Hi Marcel That sounds reasonable to me. Kind regards Angela From: Marcel Reutegger Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 2:15 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10 Hi, On 06.12.19, 14:07, "Julian

Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10

Hi Julian From: Julian Reschke Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:39 PM To: Angela Schreiber ; oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10 On 05.12.2019 16:49, Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Julian > >

Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10

Reschke Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:12 PM To: Angela Schreiber ; oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10 On 05.12.2019 16:00, Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Julian > > Sorry, but I still don't get why we have to back port the de

Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

porting the huge number of API changes we made over the last couple of years. Kind regards Angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 2:38 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org ; Angela Schreiber Subject: Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK

Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10

in different branches that don't exactly match. Kind regards Angela From: Julian Reschke Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 2:55 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org ; Angela Schreiber Subject: Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10 On 05.12.2019 13

Re: Intent to backport to 1.10: OAK-8018

Hi Julian This changes with OAK-8018 modified public API as far as I can see and I vaguely remember that we concluded in the past that we want to avoid back porting anything that is not a critical bug and be particularly careful not to back port API changes. I would appreciate if you could

Re: Deprecating API signatures referring to Guava in 1.10

Hi Julian Maybe you could elaborate a bit more about the reasoning of backporting the deprecated API signatures using Guava 1.10? The reason for the deprecation was the fact that we want to make breaking changes, right? And this is the kind of change I would feel quite uncomfortable with when

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Jackrabbit-Oak-Windows #1270

hi julian the jackrabbit-oak-windows build keeps failing for quite some time now. i don't think it is related to my changes that are limited to oak-auth-external. in particular since error seem to indicate some issue with the azure dependency, which afaik is not relevant for the external auth

Re: Versioning and restoring

Hi Richard Version with Oak should work according to the specification which you find at https://docs.adobe.com/docs/en/spec/jcr/2.0/15_Versioning.html This includes all the details regarding OPV behavior upon restore. However, I quickly checked the implementation in oak-jcr and restore by

Re: ldap user permission

, Angela Schreiber () escribió: > hi jorge > > that should be easy to do by configuring your system to trigger the > 'AccessControlAction' upon user/group creation. this action is part of the > default action provider implementation and you can configure the desired > privileges

Re: ldap user permission

hi jorge that should be easy to do by configuring your system to trigger the 'AccessControlAction' upon user/group creation. this action is part of the default action provider implementation and you can configure the desired privileges granted for users and group, respectively. in the OSGi

Re: Users, groups and permissions

. It seems that we are not using the default security setup for Oak. I will have to look into it. Best regards. Jorge Flórez El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 2:03, Angela Schreiber () escribió: > Hi Jorge > > The https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/user/groupaction.html > are not dire

Re: Users, groups and permissions

Hi Jorge The https://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/user/groupaction.html are not directly related to permission evaluation. This is just an optional add on to perform specific verification or action upon modification of the set of members of a given group e.g. write a log

Re: Queries for migrating to jackrabbti oak from jackrabbti 2.18

Hi Tuhin Answers inline below > 5. Does OAK provide multiple workspaces in one repository ? No, workspace management is currently not supported in Oak [0]. > I have couple of queries on this migration : > > 1. *Oak does not index as much content by default as does Jackrabbit 2. > Custom

Re: updating pom.xml to latest jackrabbit version

To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: updating pom.xml to latest jackrabbit version On 03/05/2019 10:35, Angela Schreiber wrote: > hi oak-devs > > for my recent work on OAK-8190 i would need the latest jackrabbit-api > including the extension added with JCR-4429. looking

updating pom.xml to latest jackrabbit version

hi oak-devs for my recent work on OAK-8190 i would need the latest jackrabbit-api including the extension added with JCR-4429. looking that summary written by Davide recently (http://markmail.org/message/bndcm5jwfasj4otm) and on the oak documentation i couldn't find if we are still fine to

Re: Retrieving permissions for user

Hi Jorge The code you are describing relies on an implementation detail and you are right that it only works for administrative sessions. The reason for this is that using a different user to read from the permission store would essentially leak information that may not be accessible to that

OAK-8190 : initial commit....

hi oak-dev i am planning to push a initial version of the authorization model for OAK-8190 [0] later today or early next week. while it is still work in progress and some pieces (notably benchmarks and documentation) are still missing, i feel that it is stable enough to be committed now. the

Re: how to change password for a new system user?

hi system users are created without a password and the oak implementation doesn't allow them to have a password at all. see constraintviolation error codes 0032 and 0033 in http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/user/default.html#validation kind regards angela

backporting OAK-8023

hi oak-dev i would like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-8023 to the 1.10 branch. unless someone objects, i merge the fix tomorrow as i consider the overall risk to be small. kind regards angela

Re: oak-http html generator title issue

Hi Ruben Can you create a JIRA ticket at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OAK/issues and attach the patch there? Thanks Angela From: Ruben Reusser Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 5:54 PM To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: oak-http html generator

Re: Request for info on Oak restriction management for JCR-SQL2 queries

restriction management for JCR-SQL2 queries Hi Angela Thank you for the response. I've created an issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7997 with the test code included. -Original Message- From: Angela Schreiber Sent: 21. januar 2019 13:25 To: us...@jackrabbit.apache.org; oak-dev

Re: Request for info on Oak restriction management for JCR-SQL2 queries

Hi Søren I would expect the query results to reflect the effective permissions i.e. the result set should only return what is accessible to the editing session and the results should be consistent with calls to Session.getNode/getProperty/getItem. Without having a closer look at the code

Re: OAK-7511 (nullability annotations) vs Oak 1.8.*

an happy occurrence where I could rollback my backport and skip this release, and I'm happy it provided the opportunity to give the OAK-7511 backport some more air time. best, alex On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:35 PM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Julian > > On a general note Variant 2) loo

Re: ACL on versioned node

), the permission on the node are not restored alongside the node state, so why do I have to version it in the first place? Am I missing something? Marco. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:03 PM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Marco > > As far as I remember the access control content is not versio

Re: ACL on versioned node

AM Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Marco > > Upon checkin of a versionable node (and it's non-versionable subtree) > becomes read-only. I think the first behavior is a bug. Changing > permissions of a checked-in node should not be possible. The reason why you > are seeing it

Re: ACL on versioned node

Hi Marco Upon checkin of a versionable node (and it's non-versionable subtree) becomes read-only. I think the first behavior is a bug. Changing permissions of a checked-in node should not be possible. The reason why you are seeing it in the second case is due to the fact that a mixin is

Intent to backport OAK-7356

Hi I would like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-7356. Please let me know if you have any concern/objection. Kind regards Angela

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >