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: Grant -revoke (464) and future backwards compat
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:14:23 GMT


Øystein Grøvlen wrote:

> My main concern here is usability.  As long as the legacy mode is the
> default, it seems OK to enforce such restrictions in sqlStandard mode
> since it will probably not hit unexperienced users.  Will legacy mode
> always be the default?  Do we plan to switch to sqlStandard mode at
> some point in time?

Good comments, thanks... Legacy mode is the default now and I think it
should continue to be the default until Derby supports well-rounded
sqlStandard authorization model and provided sufficient warnings to
existing users. Switching default is a decision for the community to
make... hopefully sooner (like 10.3) than later. Also, I would like to
see system privileges work completed to some degree.

> Another important aspect of usability is that a product behaves in a
> familiar way.  That is, the behavior is similar to similar products. 
> I am a bit concerned if users will need to know about a specific
> property in order to be able to use GRANT/REVOKE.  Also, can we really
> claim to be standards-compliant if one needs to set specific property
> in order to be able to use parts of the standard?

Right... Without Francois's work, sqlStandard authorization is not going
to be similar to other products anyway. :-)   I am also considering
documenting current limitations of sqlStandard authorization model and
advise users to evaluate it well before using it. Once the model is more
complete, these warnings in the docs could go and the community could
decide on switching the default authorization model.

Satheesh

> I also note that while easy-to-use and standards-based is covered by
> the Derby Charter, backward-compatibility is not.  ;-)
>
> -- 
> Øystein
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message