Re: Default permission: "*" or "-"

 > Jeremy Boynes wrote:
 >
 > Eamonn, can you confirm the intent here is that an empty pattern in part
 > of the name should be treated as "-" i.e.
 > "Foo" == "Foo#-[-]" == ("Foo", null, null)
 > "#Bar" == "-#Bar[-]" == (null, "Bar", null)
 > "[x:x=x]" == "-#-[x:x=x]" == (null, null, "x:x=x")

Jeremy there is one important thing to understand which is the difference
between NEED and HAVE permission.

The NEED permission is built by your implementation depending on the MBean
server method called whereas the HAVE permissions are the ones specified in
the policy file for example.

Then "null" or "-" is usually used when building the NEED permission whereas
"empty" or "*" are used when defining the HAVE permissions.

In other words, "empty" or "*" implies "null" or "-" but only "null" or "-"
implies "null" or "-".

Your assumptions are then false and should be:

<"Foo" implies "Foo#-[-]"> AND <"Foo#-[-]" == ("Foo", null, null)>

<"#Bar" implies "-#Bar[-]"> AND <"-#Bar[-]" == (null, "Bar", null)>

<"[x:x=x]" implies "-#-[x:x=x]"> AND <"-#-[x:x=x]" == (null, null, "x:x=x")>

 > Also, can you confirm that method parts ending in "*" would be a valid
 > extension (assuming the TCK tests pass of course).

IMHO this breaks portability and thus should be avoided.

Regards,
Luis

 > Simone, are you OK with me first redoing the MX4J tests so the RI passes
 > and then changing MX4J to match?
 >
 > Thanks
 > --
 > Jeremy


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click