"Kathey Marsden (JIRA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12515826
> ]
>
> Kathey Marsden commented on DERBY-2925:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Ramin, do you think the issue is that we now need read permission for the
> extout directory in the policy file, so we can determine if the file exists?
> e.g.
>
> Index:
> java/testing/org/apache/derbyTesting/functionTests/util/derby_tests.policy
> ===================================================================
> ---
> java/testing/org/apache/derbyTesting/functionTests/util/derby_tests.policy
> (revision 559646)
> +++
> java/testing/org/apache/derbyTesting/functionTests/util/derby_tests.policy
> (working copy)
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
> // Import/export and other support files from these locations in tests
> permission java.io.FilePermission "${user.dir}${/}extin${/}-", "read";
> permission java.io.FilePermission "${user.dir}${/}extinout${/}-", "read,
> write, delete";
> - permission java.io.FilePermission "${user.dir}${/}extout${/}-", "write";
> + permission java.io.FilePermission "${user.dir}${/}extout${/}-",
> "read,write";
> permission java.io.FilePermission "${user.dir}${/}extinout", "read,write";
Btw, are the the following entires in derby_tests.policy correct?
* It seems to me the entires for ${derbyTesting.clienthost} and
derbyTesting.serverhost should be the other way around? (I.e. the
"accept" is needed by the server, not the client.)
* The "resolve"s are redundant (implied by both accept and connect),
but given in three of the four cases, why?
// combination of client and server side.
permission java.net.SocketPermission "127.0.0.1", "accept,connect,resolve";
permission java.net.SocketPermission "localhost", "accept,connect,resolve";
permission java.net.SocketPermission "${derbyTesting.clienthost}",
"accept,connect";
permission java.net.SocketPermission "${derbyTesting.serverhost}",
"connect,resolve";
