db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Øystein Grøvlen <Oystein.Grov...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Grant -revoke (464) and future backwards compat
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:05:18 GMT
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
> 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.

I agree with this.

>>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.

Sounds like a good approach.


View raw message