Thanks Kathey for looking at this patch.
Kathey Marsden (JIRA) wrote:
Your table is very useful and I think it should be incorporated into the test or code comments. Perhaps the following could be clarified.
I'll add the table into the test comments. I am actually working on
putting a page on Wiki for the security mechanism related information
that I have been working on.
In the code, I am unsure about the impact of adding this code to the static
initializer block. I know you had asked about it earlier and I wish I had
insight to the implications but just don't. Hopefully someone else does.
I think the static init block in the ClientBaseDataSource is ok, but I
was worried about implications of putting it in the ClientDriver static
init block.
Maybe it would be good to change SECMEC_HAS_NOT_EXPLICITLY_SET to something
like SECMEC_DEFAULT for clarification. Something about the negatives in
variable names always confuses me.
This variable is used to indicate that the security mechanism has not
been set on datasource or connection request. I can change it to
SECMEC_DEFAULT if that is preferred.
Its just that SECMEC_DEFAULT seems to suggest that it is the default
security mechanism which it isnt. The default security mechanism for
the client is USRIDONL (0x04)
Thanks again Kathey for reviewing this patch.
Sunitha.
