db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.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 Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:10:06 GMT
Thanks, Sateesh.  Sorry, I missed the request for review comments.  No 
need; I personally am not able at this time to review your changes.  I 
just thought this was the first time we saw these changes.  My mistake.

David

Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I did post the patch for review... I followed up the post after few days
> to invite anyone to review again. That time I said I could wait for
> review comments or submit then address comments. I also said I would
> submit the patch over the next weekend. Since no one replied that either
> they want more time or going to review before submission, I submitted
> the change.
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/11113
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/11012
> 
> I am willing to address any review comments anyone has. Should I have
> waited for more time? I wanted to submit the changes over the weekend to
> minimize any disruptions...
> 
> Satheesh
> 
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi, Satheesh.  I am still learning the Apache Way, so I wanted to get
>>some clarity on how things are generally done.
>>
>>I know that committers have the merit and trust to commit what they
>>want.  I had generally assumed, however, that a large change like this
>>should be posted as a patch for review before being committed.
>>
>>Is the approach that we do an svn diff of the change revision and we
>>can send you comments, and you can make changes in response?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>David
>>
>>Satheesh Bandaram (JIRA) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    [
>>>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-464?page=comments#action_12360186
>>>]
>>>Satheesh Bandaram commented on DERBY-464:
>>>-----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>I have submitted Grant and Revoke, Part I to trunk. Let me know if
>>>anyone would like to join developing remaining parts. It is possible
>>>to coordinate development using a Wiki.
>>>This Phase I implements:
>>>
>>>  * Grant/Revoke DDL parsing and execution
>>>  * Addition of several new system tables to hold the system
>>>metadata. I will update my spec to include detailed schema for new
>>>system tables, so that they can be included in 10.2 documentation.
>>>  *  Enhancing the syntax for routine creation to include
>>>external-security clause
>>>  *  Very simple tests to cover only the DDL. I would be expanding on
>>>the testing in the later submissions, including a JUnit test suite.
>>>  * Grant/Revoke DDL is only supported if
>>>derby.database.defaultConnectionMode property is set to 'sqlStandard'.
>>>
>>>Pending items from Phase I:
>>>
>>>   1. dblook needs to be enhanced to emit DDL for grant statements.
>>>   2. Enhanced JUnit based test suite with many more tests.    3.
>>>Some implementation improvements possible with the current patch. It
>>>should be possible to combine several new nodes being added, to
>>>reduce number of nodes and hence foot print. Also, the patch adds a
>>>Java object to new system tables. While Derby already has some java
>>>objects in its system tables, I think, we should discourage adding
>>>new java objects to catalogs. Since Java objects can't be used in SQL
>>>easily, this makes metadata harder to use. I will explore rewriting
>>>SYSCOLPERMS and SYSREQUIREDPERM to not use FormattableBitSet type.
>>>This can be done by having multiple entries in these catalogs for
>>>each column referenced.
>>>   4. Updating specification to include schema for new system tables.
>>>   5. Need to change how property defaultConnectionMode is set and/or
>>>used.
>>>   6. Enhance system tables to store external security clause
>>>specification.
>>>
>>>I am also working on Grant and Revoke, Phase II. This will implement
>>>permission checking for DML statement. Hopefully I will have
>>>something to submit by end of January to complete Phase I and Phase II.
>>>
>>>Also need to support upgrade and migration of legacy databases and
>>>update JDBC metadata.
>>>
>>>Let me know if I missed anything else.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Key: DERBY-464
>>>>        URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-464
>>>>    Project: Derby
>>>>       Type: New Feature
>>>> Components: SQL
>>>>   Versions: 10.0.2.1, 10.1.1.0, 10.2.0.0
>>>>Environment: generic
>>>>   Reporter: Satheesh Bandaram
>>>>   Assignee: Satheesh Bandaram
>>>>Attachments: grant.html, grantRevoke.patch.Dec5, grantRevoke.stat.Dec5
>>>>
>>>>Derby currently provides a very simple permissions scheme, which is
>>>>quite suitable for an embedded database system. End users of
>>>>embedded Derby do not see Derby directly; they talk to a application
>>>>that embeds Derby. So Derby left most of the access control work to
>>>>the application. Under this scheme, Derby limits access on a per
>>>>database or per system basis. A user can be granted full, read-only,
>>>>or no access. This is less suitable in a general purpose SQL server.
>>>>When end users or diverse applications can issue SQL commands
>>>>directly against the database, Derby must provide more precise
>>>>mechanisms to limit who can do what with the database.
>>>>I propose to enhance Derby by implementing a subset of grant/revoke
>>>>capabilities as specified by the SQL standard. I envision this work
>>>>to involve the following tasks, at least:
>>>>1) Develop a specification of what capabilities I would like to add
>>>>to Derby.
>>>>2) Provide a high level implementation scheme.
>>>>3) Pursue a staged development plan, with support for DDL added to
>>>>Derby first.
>>>>4) Add support for runtime checking of these privileges.
>>>>5) Address migration and upgrade issues from previous releases and
>>>>from old scheme to newer database.
>>>>Since I think this is a large task, I would like to invite any
>>>>interested people to work with me on this large and important
>>>>enhancement to Derby.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 

Mime
View raw message