API change for 8010464: Evolve java networking same origin policy

[Michael McMahon]

Hi Kurchi,

I can include such an example easily. Eg:

"GET,POST:Header1,Header2"

means one permission that permits either GET or POST with either or both
of the two headers. If you wanted to restrict one set of headers to GET
and another set to POST, then that would require two different
permissions.

- Michael

On 30/04/13 00:40, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>      From the documentation, it is not clear to me how to represent 
> both request-headers and method list together in an actions string for 
> two or more methods. (Say I have two methods GET and POST and I want
> to specify a request-headers list for each, how do I do it?) Maybe 
> another example will help.
>
> Thanks,
> Kurchi
>
> On 4/29/2013 3:53 AM, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> On 28/04/13 09:01, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> In the main I link the new HttpURLPermission class.
>>>
>>> When reading the docs I found the references to "the URL" and "URL 
>>> string" confusing ( it could be just me ). When I see capital 'URL' 
>>> my mind instantly, and incorrectly, goes to java.net.URL. In all 
>>> cases you mean the URL string given when constructing the 
>>> HttpURLPermission, right?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is what is meant. The class does not use j.n.URL at all, as 
>> that would bring us back
>> to the old (undesirable) behavior with DNS lookups required for basic 
>> operations like equals() and hashCode()
>>
>>> Another example is the equals method
>>>   "Returns true if, this.getActions().equals(p.getActions()) and p's
>>>    URL equals this's URL. Returns false otherwise."
>>>
>>> this is referring so a simple string comparison of the given URL 
>>> string, right? This should be case insensitive too. Does it take 
>>> into account default protocol ports, e.g. http://foo.com/ equal 
>>> http://foo.com:80/
>>>
>>
>> The implementation uses a java.net.URI internally. So URI takes care 
>> of that.
>>
>>> implies() makes reference to the URL scheme, and other specific 
>>> parts of the URL. Also, the constructors throw IAE  'if url is not a 
>>> valid URL', but what does this mean. Should we just bite the bullet 
>>> and just say that URI is used to parse the given string into its 
>>> specific parts? Otherwise, how can this be validated.
>>>
>>
>> I originally didn't want to mention URI in the apidoc due to 
>> potential confusion surrounding the use of URL in the permission
>> class name. But, maybe it would be clearer to be explicit about it, 
>> particularly for the equals() behavior.
>> Otherwise we have to specify all of it in this class.
>>
>>> As for the additions to HttpURLConnection, what are the implications 
>>> on proxies? Permissions, etc...
>>>
>>
>> There's no change in behavior with respect to proxies. Permission is 
>> given to connect to proxies implicitly
>> except in cases where the caller specifies the proxy through the 
>> URL.openConnection(Proxy) api.
>> There are other unusual cases like the Http "Use Proxy" response. 
>> Explicit permission is required
>> for that case also.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>> On 04/26/2013 03:36 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The is the suggested API for one of the two new JEPs recently 
>>>> submitted.
>>>>
>>>> This is for JEP 184: HTTP URL Permissions
>>>>
>>>> The idea here is to define a higher level http permission class
>>>> which "knows about" URLs, HTTP request methods and headers.
>>>> So, it is no longer necessary to grant blanket permission for any kind
>>>> of TCP connection to a host/port. Instead a HttpURLPermission 
>>>> restricts
>>>> access to only the Http protocol itself. Restrictions can also be 
>>>> imposed
>>>> based on URL paths, specific request methods and request headers.
>>>>
>>>> The API change can be seen at the URL below:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8010464/api/
>>>>
>>>> In addition to defining a new permission class, HttpURLConnection
>>>> is modified to make use of it and the documentation change 
>>>> describing this
>>>> can be seen at the link below:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8010464/api/blender.html
>>>>
>>>> All comments welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Michael.
>>
>