Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of anchela@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.78 as permitted sender)
From: Angela Schreiber <anchela@adobe.com>
To: "users@jackrabbit.apache.org" <users@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:12:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Bug or intended behavior (getAggregatePrivileges())
Thread-Topic: Bug or intended behavior (getAggregatePrivileges())
Thread-Index: Ac6VCnFsB46o5KY1QE2+zgyMcoOWkg==
Message-ID: <CE2AC4C8.6188%anchela@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <1376052318157-4659272.post@n4.nabble.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

hi anjan

the way i read the specification the current behaviour is correct.
in fact, i re-read it while implementation the privilege management
for OAK and finally implemented it the same way again.

kind regards
angela

On 8/9/13 2:45 PM, "anjan" <polisettya@gmail.com> wrote:

>I am using Jackrabbit version *2.4.2*.
>
>Here is the description from JCR java docs for the method
>*getAggregatePrivileges* in the interface javax.jcr.security.Privilege
>
>*  Privilege[] 	getAggregatePrivileges()*
>          /If this privilege is an aggregate privilege, returns the
>privileges it contains, the privileges contained by any aggregate
>privileges
>among those, and so on (the transitive closure of privileges contained by
>this privilege)./
>
>Here is what I am observing:
>
>(1) If the Privilege is "jcr:write", then the returned Privileges from the
>above method
>are:"jcr:removeNode","jcr:modifyProperties","jcr:removeChildNodes","jcr:ad
>dChildNodes"
>
>(2) If the Privilege is "rep:write" (jackrabbit internal privilege I
>believe), then the returned Privileges from the above method are:
>jcr:nodeTypeManagement, jcr:removeNode, jcr:modifyProperties,
>jcr:removeChildNodes, *jcr:write*, jcr:addChildNodes
>
>As we can see from (2), the returned response contains "jcr:write" and
>also
>its corresponding aggregate privileges.  Is this the intended behavior or
>a
>bug?
>
>I thought "jcr:write" should not be part of the response from (2).  Can
>someone clarify if this is the intended behavior or is this a bug.
>
>- Anjan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Bug-or-intended-behavior-getAggrega
>tePrivileges-tp4659272.html
>Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.