Hi, Satheesh. I am still learning the Apache Way, so I wanted to get
some clarity on how things are generally done.
I know that committers have the merit and trust to commit what they
want. I had generally assumed, however, that a large change like this
should be posted as a patch for review before being committed.
Is the approach that we do an svn diff of the change revision and we can
send you comments, and you can make changes in response?
Thanks,
David
Satheesh Bandaram (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-464?page=comments#action_12360186 ]
Satheesh Bandaram commented on DERBY-464:
-----------------------------------------
I have submitted Grant and Revoke, Part I to trunk. Let me know if anyone would like to join developing remaining parts. It is possible to coordinate development using a Wiki.
This Phase I implements:
* Grant/Revoke DDL parsing and execution
* Addition of several new system tables to hold the system metadata. I will
update my spec to include detailed schema for new system tables, so that they
can be included in 10.2 documentation.
* Enhancing the syntax for routine creation to include external-security
clause
* Very simple tests to cover only the DDL. I would be expanding on the
testing in the later submissions, including a JUnit test suite.
* Grant/Revoke DDL is only supported if derby.database.defaultConnectionMode
property is set to 'sqlStandard'.
Pending items from Phase I:
1. dblook needs to be enhanced to emit DDL for grant statements.
2. Enhanced JUnit based test suite with many more tests.
3. Some implementation improvements possible with the current patch. It should be possible to combine several new nodes being added, to reduce number of nodes and hence foot print. Also, the patch adds a Java object to new system tables. While Derby already has some java objects in its system tables, I think, we should discourage adding new java objects to catalogs. Since Java objects can't be used in SQL easily, this makes metadata harder to use. I will explore rewriting SYSCOLPERMS and SYSREQUIREDPERM to not use FormattableBitSet type. This can be done by having multiple entries in these catalogs for each column referenced.
4. Updating specification to include schema for new system tables.
5. Need to change how property defaultConnectionMode is set and/or used.
6. Enhance system tables to store external security clause specification.
I am also working on Grant and Revoke, Phase II. This will implement permission
checking for DML statement. Hopefully I will have something to submit by end of
January to complete Phase I and Phase II.
Also need to support upgrade and migration of legacy databases and update JDBC
metadata.
Let me know if I missed anything else.
Enhance Derby by adding grant/revoke support. Grant/Revoke provide finner level
of privileges than currently provided by Derby that is especially useful in
network configurations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: DERBY-464
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-464
Project: Derby
Type: New Feature
Components: SQL
Versions: 10.0.2.1, 10.1.1.0, 10.2.0.0
Environment: generic
Reporter: Satheesh Bandaram
Assignee: Satheesh Bandaram
Attachments: grant.html, grantRevoke.patch.Dec5, grantRevoke.stat.Dec5
Derby currently provides a very simple permissions scheme, which is quite suitable for an embedded database system. End users of embedded Derby do not see Derby directly; they talk to a application that embeds Derby. So Derby left most of the access control work to the application. Under this scheme, Derby limits access on a per database or per system basis. A user can be granted full, read-only, or no access.
This is less suitable in a general purpose SQL server. When end users or diverse applications can issue SQL commands directly against the database, Derby must provide more precise mechanisms to limit who can do what with the database.
I propose to enhance Derby by implementing a subset of grant/revoke
capabilities as specified by the SQL standard. I envision this work to involve
the following tasks, at least:
1) Develop a specification of what capabilities I would like to add to Derby.
2) Provide a high level implementation scheme.
3) Pursue a staged development plan, with support for DDL added to Derby first.
4) Add support for runtime checking of these privileges.
5) Address migration and upgrade issues from previous releases and from old
scheme to newer database.
Since I think this is a large task, I would like to invite any interested
people to work with me on this large and important enhancement to Derby.
begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
