Yes for both Q1 and Q2. ServicePermission extends BasicPermission and uses BasicPermission's name wildcarding rules.
The spec description could be improved to match. Please open a bug. -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [email protected] office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788 From: Ikuo Yamasaki <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: 2009/02/26 04:07 Subject: [osgi-dev] Question about ServicePermission Sent by: [email protected] Hi I have question on ServicePermission. I definetely say that ServicePermision("com.acme.*","get") implies ServicePermission("com.acme.Service","get"). ------------------ However, how about the following cases ? Q1. Should ServicePermision("com.*","get") implies ServicePermission("com.acme.Service","get") ? Q2. Should ServicePermision("*","get") implies ServicePermission("com.acme.Service","get") ? ------------------ R4.2 spec says The name of the service is specified as a fully qualified class name. ClassName ::= <class name> | <class name ending in “.*” > Examples: org.osgi.service.http.HttpService org.osgi.service.http.* org.osgi.service.snmp.* Regarding Q1, There is no example of "org.osgi.*" in the spec. Regarding Q2, the spec says "<class name ending in “.*”>". Best regards, ======= Ikuo YAMASAKI _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
