db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francois Orsini <francois.ors...@gmail.com>
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 Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:15:19 GMT
I never mentioned "system database" per-se - I specifically mentioned
"system Level" which is different

Yes I will scratch my own itch - at least I will try.... ;)

Sysusers just to name one entity does not have to reside in a system
database - hence why I had mentioned VTI before.

I'm all 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.

More to follow as am starting to feel itchy ;)


On 10/26/05, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com> wrote:
> Francois Orsini wrote:
> > Agreed since we always made it clear that users could be defined at the
> > system and/or database level ;)
> >
> > However, even as of today, databases can be dependent on users defined
> > at the system level if you have 'derby.database.propertiesOnly' set to
> > false which is the default I believe ;)
> >
> > What I meant to say is: (and this was in the context of Grant&Revoke
> > access to database(s) when users are defined at the system level in my
> > case which I think we'll be the most popular choice - 80/20 rule)
> Yep, flexibility is good. As long as we continue to support
> self-contained databases. A system database would be a significant new
> feature.
> Of course, I'm unclear on exactly what you are proposing, is it a new
> authentication scheme or something else? I eagerly await the functional
> spec/proposal. :-)
> Dan.

View raw message