[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

[anil.saldhana@jboss.com]

"adrian at jboss.org" wrote : "anil.saldhana at jboss.com" wrote : Additionally we can retain security.xml enabled.  We should make it do the replacement work only if JBoss was started with a SM.  
  |   | 
  |   | I mean your original proposal of injecting the security manager in the security.xml needs to be removed and the replacement of protectiondomain becomes its objective.
  | 
  | I'm sorry you've lost me again.
  | conf/security.xml is an alternate to having to use the system properties.
  | 
  | I created it because it is easier to configure than having to remember
  | to specify system properties on the command line and avoids the vfs url
  | parsing problem.
  | 
  | Going forward conf/security.xml is what we want since it enables configuration
  | (including our own security policy) from the profile service and therefore
  | the management console.
  | 
  | I've got no idea what you mean about replacing the protection domain?
  | The protection domain is loaded from the security policy using the codesource url.
  | 
  | The discussion above is about which codesource to use
  | and automatically augmenting the returned permission collection 
  | with read access for the VFS, file, etc. from where we loaded the class
  | (which can be different to the logical codesource - e.g. a copy of a nested jar into temp).

Sorry for having misunderstood.  It made sense now.  

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4188239#4188239

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4188239