[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2206?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12466581
]
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2206:
----------------------------------------------
I agree (and has been my assumption all along) that if a jarid is specified
then the behaviour for that routine should be defined by the SQL standard.
I'm not sure if opting in means that the ability to define routines without
jars is not available though.
DERBY-2250 and DEBRY-2252 could be addressed (following the SQL standard)
without resolving how to opt-in or how to make non-jarid routines secure. Those
could be separate tasks. Ie. remove the 'pseudo-jars' from DERBY-2252.
> Provide complete security model for Java routines
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2206
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2206
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Security, SQL
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Fix For: 10.3.0.0
>
>
> Add GRANT/REVOKE mechanisms to control which jar files can be mined for
> user-created objects such as Functions and Procedures. In the future this may
> include Aggregates and Function Tables also. The issues are summarized on the
> following wiki page: http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/JavaRoutineSecurity.
> Plugin management can be tracked by this JIRA rather than by DERBY-2109. This
> is a master JIRA to which subtasks can be linked.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
