db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Satheesh Bandaram <sathe...@Sourcery.Org>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-464) Enhance Derby by adding grant/revoke support. Grant/Revoke provide finner level of privileges than currently provided by Derby that is especially useful in network configurations.
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:30:54 GMT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Why exactly would we want to strengthen builtin-authentication scheme
when all of us agreed it was for simple embedded application use? I am
not sure how useful access control is for embedded usages.<br>
<br>
But I will hold off on any more questions and wait for your proposal.<br>
<br>
Satheesh<br>
<br>
Francois Orsini wrote:<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid7921d3e40510271515t384595o9177bcd9bc6a6947@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">I'm all&nbsp; for having a homogeneous and unified way to
manage
(create, drop, alter, etc) users in Derby and specifically for the
built-in authentication scheme which is what I was referring to. Today
we simply don't have that.<br>
  <br>
More to follow as am starting to feel itchy ;)<br>
  <br>
--francois<br>
  <br>
  <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/26/05, <b
 class="gmail_sendername">Daniel John Debrunner</b> &lt;<a
 href="mailto:djd@debrunners.com">djd@debrunners.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">Francois
Orsini wrote:<br>
    <br>
&gt; Agreed since we always made it clear that users could be defined
at the<br>
&gt; system and/or database level ;)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; However, even as of today, databases can be dependent on users
defined
    <br>
&gt; at the system level if you have 'derby.database.propertiesOnly'
set to<br>
&gt; false which is the default I believe ;)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; What I meant to say is: (and this was in the context of
Grant&amp;Revoke<br>
&gt; access to database(s) when users are defined at the system level
in my
    <br>
&gt; case which I think we'll be the most popular choice - 80/20 rule)<br>
    <br>
Yep, flexibility is good. As long as we continue to support<br>
self-contained databases. A system database would be a significant new<br>
feature.
    <br>
    <br>
Of course, I'm unclear on exactly what you are proposing, is it a new<br>
authentication scheme or something else? I eagerly await the functional<br>
spec/proposal. :-)<br>
    <br>
Dan.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </blockquote>
  </div>
  <br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>


Mime
View raw message