[rfc][icedtea-web] PolicyEditor gains a real parser

[Andrew Azores]

Hi,

----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On 03/18/2015 06:12 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> On 03/14/2015 09:19 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Attached is an updated version of this patch, which makes the editor
> > >>> GUI
> > >>> display the actual PolicyIdentifiers, rather than just codebases.
> > >>> Nothing
> > >>> else has changed since the previous version (other than also updating
> > >>> the
> > >>> patch to apply cleanly on current HEAD), but I think that this patch is
> > >>> in
> > >>> a pretty good state right now, and I'd like to push it and continue
> > >>> working on it in further, smaller changesets. My next goals are to
> > >>> adapt
> > >>> the UI to allow modification of the signedBy and principals for each
> > >>> identifier, and then to introduce an "Advanced View" toggle of some
> > >>> sort
> > >>> which will toggle between the existing codebase-oriented simplified UI,
> > >>> and the full UI which I just outlined. After that, I will look at
> > >>> refactoring it all to use a single class as the point of contact with
> > >>> the
> > >>> sun classes, as I've already discovered earlier today that this
> > >>> changeset
> > >>> no longer builds with the latest JDK 8.
> > >>
> > >> Just quick galnce - I'm against removal of ciodebase:((( I know it is
> > >> hard,
> > >> but some replcament
> > >> hsould be deffined.
> > >
> > > For now I've put it back then. I think eventually flags for SignedBy and
> > > Principals should be added as well, and the three of
> > 
> > That sounds good.
> > 
> > > them can then be used to create a selector. I don't really like the idea
> > > that using just -codebase alone for example would result
> >  > in selecting everything that has a matching codebase - I think it's
> >  > better
> >  > if in that situation, it's assumed that you want
> > hmhm. yes.
> > 
> > 
> >  > that matching codebase, and the default (empty/null) for other
> >  > nonspecified criteria. It makes more sense that way since using
> >  >  the flags this way can either create a new entry or select an existing
> >  >  match.
> > 
> > 
> > agree
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Also - I owuld like to release in month,  or two - no longer. How is
> > >> your
> > >> work on this suitbale with
> > >> this schedule?
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >
> > > My final exams start in about three weeks and run until the end of April,
> > > so I don't know how much time I will have during that period. Can you
> > > define what more work you want to be present in the next release and what
> > > work can wait until after?
> > >
> > 
> > My issue is, that 1.6 seems pretty stable right now. And this is a big
> > patch.
> > 
> > So questions are - How stable and useful is this patch as it is alone?
> > 
> > If it is worthy to make it to 1.6?
> 
> > What re risks that you will not be able
> > to tune it before release?
> 
> Very high.
> 
> > 
> > also I wonted to write to translators, that  they can start transalting -
> > will some upcoming work  bring changes to properties?
> 
> There would probably be some more new messages added as the remaining issues
> with the UI here are worked through.
> 
> > 
> > if answers are
> > "not sure" "maybe" "maybe not" and "yes" then I would vote for suspending
> > to
> > 1.7.
> > 
> > 
> > hmm?
> > 
> > 
> > J.
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> The last several weeks were much more busy with school than anticipated - all
> of the final assignments and projects turned out to be quite major and time
> consuming, and there's still one last one that I have to hammer out for next
> week, and then I have final exams to worry about. That along with some
> family medical issues in the past few weeks has left me with no time to
> continue working on this patch so far. I'm not going to drop this patch but
> I'm going to have to put it on hold for a few weeks, I think. So I
> definitely vote for it to be suspended until 1.7 as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew
> 

Just in time for my part-time contract ending, I have this patch back up for review. Since last time the PolicyEditor has completely transitioned from using the "codebase" as its identifier for policy entries to using the actual PolicyIdentifier type, including UI updates to display AND modify the SignedBy and Principals elements. The work is still mostly plumbing - not all that much really had to change for the UI, it's mostly just small additions (more dialogs, menu items, etc.).

You can also use -codebase, -signedby, and -principals from the command line to form a "selector", which will create a new PolicyIdentifier with the given criteria, create it if needed, and select it when the PolicyEditor appears - much like the old behaviour when only -codebase existed. I also fixed a bug where the -file switch didn't work properly, and a bug where adding custom permissions would fail if the given PolicyIdentifier had not yet been created (eg by defining standard permissions for it first).

There still isn't an advanced vs simple view, but that's a lot of extra work that I think should be done after this patch has finally been merged. It's already quite a large patch.

Thanks,

Andrew A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: policyeditor-real-parser-5.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 256356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20150429/2172ed76/policyeditor-real-parser-5-0001.patch>