November 2008 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by adrian＠jboss.org

"alesj" wrote : "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : I like the way you create a blocker issue when you haven't even discussed it in the | | forums. :-) | | | Had to get your attention somehow. :-) | | OTOH, it was discussed all over the place - jboss-dev ml, | Only reference I see is an embedded comment in the VFSPermissions thread by Anil saying that he is no expert on AOP so he'll create a blocker issue for me to investigate the problem. How does he know there is even a real problem if he hasn't investigated it? anonymous wrote : | internal emails, ... | Ah! Sorry, my psychic powers aren't working very well today. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190159#4190159 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190159

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | We might want to create an interface for this contract since it is not good | that the GBF depends upon a particular implementation of the KernelControllerContext | interface? Probably doesn't belong to KCC, more like our InvokeDispatchContext? What would be a good name? :-) Considering probable future usages/additions. e.g. AccessControlContextAware? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190157#4190157 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190157

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by adrian＠jboss.org

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | This required a change to AbstractKernelControllerContext::getAccessControlContext() | to make it public. | We might want to create an interface for this contract since it is not good that the GBF depends upon a particular implementation of the KernelControllerContext interface? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190154#4190154 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190154

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : I like the way you create a blocker issue when you haven't even discussed it in the | forums. :-) | Had to get your attention somehow. :-) OTOH, it was discussed all over the place - jboss-dev ml, internal emails, ... So not really a huge blocker surprise there. ;-) "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | It could just as easily have been an aop or ejb3 problem since it is they | that are trying to createBean() and the caller has no rights. | That's what I was explaining to Anil. Eventually decided to push the issue to you, since I still somehow felt it was ours to deal with - and it turned out to be true. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190153#4190153 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190153

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: bundling JTS into AS 5.0

by jhalliday

Thanks Ivo. I've put that into AS trunk and updated the rest of the install process to cope with the new AS lib dir layout too. https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-6207 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190152#4190152 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190152

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFactory.

by adrian＠jboss.org

I like the way you create a blocker issue when you haven't even discussed it in the forums. :-) It could just as easily have been an aop or ejb3 problem since it is they that are trying to createBean() and the caller has no rights. In fact, the initial issue is definetly an MC problem. It shouldn't be trying to use the TCL at all which is where it is failing. The reason it is trying to use it, is because the caller doesn't have the getClassLoader permission to retrieve the classloader from the KernelControllerContext. So that should be in a privileged action. But equally, I've gone beyond that basic fix, since in my opionion, the createBean() should run under the privileges of whoever registered the GenericBeanFactory in the MC. So I've changed it to do that as well. This required a change to AbstractKernelControllerContext::getAccessControlContext() to make it public. Equally, since that information should be protected against misuse, I've required the caller to have new SecurityPermission("getAccessControlContext"); I'm not sure if that is the correct permission or whether this should be one of the fine grained permissions described on a different thread. You can find the test(s) for these in org.jboss.test.kernel.controller.test.GenericBeanFactoryAccessControlTestCase The first test registers a GenericBeanFactory in a context that can access the System properties. It shows the constructor can still do that when you use createBean(). It also tests that createBean() uses the correct classloader (not the TCL). The second test is similar, except the context registering the GBF doesn't have the rights to get the system properties. NOTE: Just because createBean() now restores your privileges from GBF registration time, that doesn't mean you shouldn't use privilege blocks. Who knows in what security context somebody will create a GBF for your bean? :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190149#4190149 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190149

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Drill down on database incompatibilities

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Folks, I compared the generated DDL scripts between * jpdl-3.2.2-SOA-4.2.0.CP02 * jbpm-3.3.0.GA Here the results | --- src/main/resources/ddl/jbpm.jpdl.mysql.sql (revision 2985) | +++ src/main/resources/ddl/jbpm.jpdl.mysql.sql (working copy) | | -create table JBPM_MODULEDEFINITION (... NAME_ text, ...) | +create table JBPM_MODULEDEFINITION (... NAME_ varchar(255), ...) | | -create table JBPM_NODE (... SIGNAL_ integer, ...) | +create table JBPM_NODE (... PARENTLOCKMODE_ varchar(255), SIGNAL_ integer, ...) | | -create table JBPM_VARIABLEINSTANCE (... STRINGVALUE_ text, ...) | +create table JBPM_VARIABLEINSTANCE (... STRINGVALUE_ varchar(255), ...) | Is this what you would expect? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190144#4190144 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190144

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: hourly builds on hudson

by jmesnil

"timfox" wrote : Noisy in what way? You only get an email if it fails. Noisy when I browse Hudson UI to correlate a failure with a svn changeset and there are builds in-between. "timfox" wrote : | It needs to be run repeatedly since there are some race conditions that only show up every X runs, where X can be quite large. This allows us to catch them. ok. if the change was done on purpose, I'm fine with it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190140#4190140 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190140

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by kukeltje

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : ProcessInstance => Process | | In Java an object instance is commonly called Foo not FooInstance. The standard talks about an "instance of a Process" rather than a ProcessInstance | | Hmm... semantics? imo this is not about the intstance of a Process (Java) object but of an instance of the Process as a business object as compared to the definition. Your argument is kind of still valid than (about removing the Instance part) just in another context. Otoh, it makes it kind of clear that it is *not* a definition. "thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : Tokens may have a parent child relationship, Process' do not. | A Process can be started, a Token cannot. | A Process has structure (i.e. child Nodes), a Token has not. | What about the relation between processes and subprocesses? Are those only visible via the definition? It might make sense to have a method in the api that says Process.hasRunningChildProcesses() or something like that. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190134#4190134 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190134

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: connection factories and connection params

by timfox

But acceptor params != connector params View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190122#4190122 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190122

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums November 2008