accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: "NOT" operator in visibility string
Date Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:24:58 GMT
Your case for exclusivity also breaks when you take into account users
having the intersection of visibilities they have access to and
visibilities they are requesting to use.


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Philip A Grim II <
phil@insufficient-light.com> wrote:

>
>
> Josh Elser said:
>
> <snip>
>
> Second, the functionality is already present by the lack of providing the
> label which you want to negate. Categorizing data into static labels tends
> to be more manageable over using many roles. While enumerating the inverse
> of a negation is possible, it is valid that the marking may be much larger
> on disk than a representation using a negation.
>
> </snip>
>
>
>
> I'm having trouble with this - perhaps I'm not thinking of it the right
> way.
>
>
>
> How would you handle mutual exclusivity?  So, say I have a cell that I can
> mark M or F.  If it's M, people with M can see it.  If it's F, people with
> F can see it.  But people with M&F can see it either way, and I don't want
> that.  If it's marked F, I don't want people with M seeing it.  So (F&!M)
> makes sense to denote that.  Lacking that, the only way I can see to
> implement what I want is somehow in application or business logic to make
> sure nobody gets assigned M and F at the same time...which breaks the model
> of letting Accumulo enforce visibility.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>

Mime
View raw message