Yes I will scratch my own itch - at least I will try.... ;)
Sysusers just to name one entity does not have to reside in a system database - hence why I had mentioned VTI before.
I'm all for having a homogeneous and unified way to manage (create, drop, alter, etc) users in Derby and specifically for the built-in authentication scheme which is what I was referring to. Today we simply don't have that.
More to follow as am starting to feel itchy ;)
--francois
On 10/26/05, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Francois Orsini wrote:
> Agreed since we always made it clear that users could be defined at the
> system and/or database level ;)
>
> However, even as of today, databases can be dependent on users defined
> at the system level if you have 'derby.database.propertiesOnly' set to
> false which is the default I believe ;)
>
> What I meant to say is: (and this was in the context of Grant&Revoke
> access to database(s) when users are defined at the system level in my
> case which I think we'll be the most popular choice - 80/20 rule)
Yep, flexibility is good. As long as we continue to support
self-contained databases. A system database would be a significant new
feature.
Of course, I'm unclear on exactly what you are proposing, is it a new
authentication scheme or something else? I eagerly await the functional
spec/proposal. :-)
Dan.
