lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amin Mohammed-Coleman <>
Subject Re: Filtering question/advice
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:38:32 GMT
I include a testcase to show what I am trying to do.  Testcase number 3


On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Amin Mohammed-Coleman <>wrote:

> Hi,
> I am looking at applying a security filter for our lucene document and I
> was wondering if I could get feedback on whether the solution I have come up
> with.  Firstly I will explain the scenario and followed by the proposed
> solution:
> We have a concept of a Layer which is a project whereby a broker can trade
> with underwriters.  A layer can have more than one underwriter working on
> this project therefore both underwriters can search for the same layer.  The
> issue is the following:
> UWA signs business on a Layer L1 using a reference 'HELLO'
> UWB signs business on the same Layer L1 using a reference 'BYE'
> Both Underwriters are legitimately allowed to access the Layer L1 so the
> security rules will not remove any search hits for L1. However, if UWB
> searches for text 'HELLO' he should not get L1 in his search results as he
> is not to know that L1 includes a writer reference HELLO for UWA. In the
> simple case he will see this result.  Now this is not acceptable for our
> case.
> The proposed solution is that we do the following:
> Document:
> uw-reference = HELLO
> uw-reference = BYE
> With additional field like
> uw-uwa = HELLO
> uw-uwb = BYE
> So when UWB performs a search of "HELLO" there will be an additional filter
> applied which would be like "uw-uwb:HELLO" so the final query would be like:
> uw-reference:HELLO + (uw-uwb:HELLO) (approximately)
> Th
> I created a test case to test this solution and it works. The problem is
> that if UWB searches for "HELLO" that exists in another field such as:
> data:HELLO then he should get a result. It's only when the query is matched
> on reference he should not see anything.  My testcase fails when the match
> is made on the data field as the security filter does not pass (valid
> filter).  Is there a way around this?  Hope this made sense!
> Any advice would be highly appreciated

View raw message