Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] Original vs. Revised Access Control Policy Proposals
Title: Re: [higgins-dev] Original vs. Revised Access Control Policy Proposals
Completely agree with this design constraint. We segregate “normal” data Entities from “policy” Entities. At present all Policy Entities are of class “Policy” and thus can be differentiated from normal data Entities.

In [1], E2 is the Policy Entity. It can be addressed by its EntityId attribute. So it is addressable.

E2’s attributes whether literals or relational arcs pointing at other Entities are tightly bound to and associated with E2. If, for example, you were to delete E2 entirely, you’d end up deleting all attributes of E2. So it seems to me that the Policy Entity can be managed separately.

Then again, I may not be understanding what you wrote..

-Paul


On 7/7/08 1:09 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The policy should be something that can be addressable and thus managed separate the the relationships that resources may have to the policy so not sure the proposal you have on the table allows for this today

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

Paul Trevithick ---07/02/2008 05:33:47 PM---Okay, I’ve created a wiki page [1] describing the proposed changes. We can discuss this on the regular call tomorrow.


From:
Paul Trevithick <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:
higgins-dev <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:
07/02/2008 05:33 PM

Subject:
Re: [higgins-dev] Original vs. Revised Access Control Policy Proposals



Okay, I’ve created a wiki page [1] describing the proposed changes. We can discuss this on the regular call tomorrow.

-Paul

[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/HOWL_Update_1.1.103 <http://wiki.eclipse.org/HOWL_Update_1.1.103>


On 7/1/08 12:38 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

Back to the top