db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: corrupt disk io storage factory for testing.
Date Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:44:26 GMT
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't making internal classes public an 
inherent security risk?  Unless these APIs do security checks 
(authorization checks of an authenticated user), then they shouldn't be 
public, IMHO.  This is especially risky given that Derby supports 
server-side Java...



Suresh Thalamati wrote:

> Hi,
>  I  am looking at  creating a new corruptible storage factory by 
> extending the engine's disk storage factory.
>  Purpose of this is to do explicitly corrupt the  IO and do some 
> recovery testing.  Thought ideal place
>  for the corruptible storage factory is to be in the test code utilities 
> not in the code line.  But  I ran into a simple obstacle ,
>  constructors in the  org.apache.derby.impl.io.DirFile etc are package 
> protected. So I am  unable to extend the disk storage
>  factory classes successfully .
>  I was  wondering  if  there was any reason for not making constructors 
> public or it was just that there was not requirement to do ?
>  If no one has any objections I would like  to  modify them to be 
> accessible outside  org.apache.derby.impl.io.*  package ?
> Thanks
> -suresht

View raw message