river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sim IJskes - QCG <...@qcg.nl>
Subject Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Build failed in Hudson: River-trunk-QA-windows #7
Date Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:51:10 GMT
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Build failed in Hudson: River-trunk-QA-windows #7
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:49:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Resendes <resendes@yahoo.com>
To: Sim IJskes - QCG <sim@qcg.nl>

> >>  There are a lot of

> >> new  SharedActivationPolicyPermission("http://resendes:8080/policy.all");
> >>  calls and a lot of
> >> new SharedActivationPolicyPermission( fs + "vob"  + fs + "jive" + fs +
> >> "policy" + fs + "policy.all");
> >>  calls.
> >
> > I think we established earlier that "resendes" is used to  represent a
> > non-existent host.
> Yes, i hadn't forgotten, but is it  a bug or intentional.
> The second one is a relative url, the first one  isn't.
> When we look at the javadocs for SharedActivationPolicyPermission  the
> policy string argument has the same semantics as  FilePermission.
> FilePermission has no URL, so  SharedActivationPolicyPermission should
> not be a URL.
Well, I might be a little rusty, but I think the javadoc(s) only state 
that the
SharedActivationPolicyPermission  follows the "file matching" semantics of
FilePermission. That is, the use of "*" and "-" in the path. I don't 
think there
is an implication that the String argument needs to just be a filename. 
In fact,
I don't think this was the intent as evidenced by 1) the comment in the 
method and 2) the fact that the SharedActivationPolicyPermission  isn't "a"
FilePermission subtype. I'm also pretty sure this wasn't the original 
(not me) intent. [Maybe that person can chime to confirm/deny.]

Again, I think the FilePermission reference was only to leverage its 
semantics. There's probably a javadoc bug lurking because we're 
discussing the
intent of the existing language.

I'm not sure what solution you are asking about, but hopefully the above
discussion helps. Let me know if you have any further questions/problems.

> Flawed  reasoning? Either the testcases with URL were undetected bugs, or
> the javadoc  for SharedActivationPolicyPermission is a bug.
> The URL stuff in init() is  just enlisted to do some FileSeparator
> conversion, if the javadoc is  right.
> Gr. Sim
> P.S. Bob? Any change that little birdie you talked  about will tell us
> the solution?
> --
> QCG, Software voor het MKB,  071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp,  Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

View raw message