Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <92097888.1109027031632.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (GERONIMO-586) Exceptions at startup if
 Geronimo
 started under security manager
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: sissonj@insession.com
Message-ID: 
 <OF5A5AEBDB.69ACCAD1-ONCA256FB0.00079CBC-CA256FB0.00085E7E@tsainc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:31:25 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

"John Sisson (JIRA)" <dev@geronimo.apache.org> wrote on 22/02/2005 
10:03:51 AM:

>      [ 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-586?page=comments#action_59546 
]
> 
> John Sisson commented on GERONIMO-586:
> --------------------------------------
> 
> The GeronimoPolicy class has two constructors, one of them has a 
> parameter root, or type Policy, but this is not used by 
SecurityServiceImpl.
> 
> If SecurityServiceImpl is changed to pass the default system policy 
> on the GeronimoPolicy constructor, Geronimo initialisation under a 
> security manager gets a lot further, until it hits another problem 
> with the GeronimoPolicy.getPermissions(..) method, which I will 
> document in another comment.
> 

My workaround was to just pass Policy.getPolicy() as the 2nd parameter on 
the constructor, but I don't think that is a proper solution if the 
security service can be stopped and restarted and also does not comply 
with the JACC spec, Section 2.7 - What the application server should do, 
2nd last paragraph, regarding setPolicy() only should be called once. 

Thoughts?

John

> I am assuming that the GeronimoPolicy implementation should be 
> behaving as a "delegating Policy provider" as described in Section 
> 2.5 of the JACC spec.  If this is the case, it should be documented 
> on the Wiki / installation instructions (also see last paragraph of 
> section 2.5).
>