Useful information. I've reread the Javadoc comments. I still can't find
a definite statement of what the rules are for the policy string. "file"
URLs are definitely permitted because of an example in the comments, and
the init comment suggests "http" is permitted. On the other hand, it
nowhere says which protocols are supported.
In looking at all this, I've found another weirdness.
SharedActivationGroupDescriptor has a two argument constructor that
makes no use at all of its second argument, "action". It is used neither
in the River code nor in the QA test, so why does it exist???
Patricia
On 11/22/2010 9:51 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Build failed in Hudson: River-trunk-QA-windows #7
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:49:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Resendes <[email protected]>
To: Sim IJskes - QCG <[email protected]>
....
Well, I might be a little rusty, but I think the javadoc(s) only state
that the
SharedActivationPolicyPermission follows the "file matching" semantics of
FilePermission. That is, the use of "*" and "-" in the path. I don't
think there
is an implication that the String argument needs to just be a filename.
In fact,
I don't think this was the intent as evidenced by 1) the comment in the
init()
method and 2) the fact that the SharedActivationPolicyPermission isn't "a"
FilePermission subtype. I'm also pretty sure this wasn't the original
author's
(not me) intent. [Maybe that person can chime to confirm/deny.]
Again, I think the FilePermission reference was only to leverage its
"matching"
semantics. There's probably a javadoc bug lurking because we're
discussing the
intent of the existing language.
I'm not sure what solution you are asking about, but hopefully the above
discussion helps. Let me know if you have any further questions/problems.
...
