Re: designer webserver library (wsgl?) problems

Out of the mists of memory creeps forward a bug I once logged. Believe it was with this one...

Anyway - if it does access table(s), and it's the "old" designer wsgl stuff (i am quite familiar with that), you do need to grant access to bob on that table (it will not use the invokers' stuff - wasn't known by then).

With direct grants I mean: grant select on table_blah to bob; not: grant select on table_blah to bobs_role, and grant bobs_role to bob.

Grant execute to public will not resolve table access problems. Bob will need to be able to "see" the table, while using stored procedures; so just verifying in sqlplus will not be enough: plus has roles enabled, pl/sql not.

hth, Frank

Verna Legaspi wrote:

> Thank you so much for the reply... However, I have a couple questions:
>
> What did you mean about "grants need to be made to the user(s) directly?"
> Granting execute on the package to public is not enough? Or are you saying
> granting select on tables need to be made directly?
>
> I *think* I have both covered. I've granted execute on all four packages in
> the wsgl_public schema to the bob schema (in addition to the public grants).
> I'm 98% sure the bob schema owns any tables wsgl_public is accessing. (I'll
> check when I'm in the office tomorrow.) I've even granted SELECT ANY TABLE
> and DBA privs to bob.
>
> FYI - The procedure that's failing (if you're familiar with old Designer's
> webserver stuff) is wsgl.counthits. I believe this basically adds a
> COUNT(*) from a query.
>
> Thanks again. Any enlightment would be much appreciated.
>
> Verna
>
> However, I have a question about
> "frank" <fbortel_at_home.nl> wrote in message news:39E04833.609732D8_at_home.nl...
> > Inline...
> >
> > Verna Legaspi wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm having a problem trying to get a designer webserver generated
> > > application to work with my newly organized tablespace/schema design.
 Since
> > > I'm not very familiar with how Designer works and am not sure where the
> > > problem lies, I'll just throw in as much detail as I can...
> > >
> > > Solaris 2.7
> > > Oracle 8.1.6 RDBMS
> > >
> > > Using Oracle Application Server 4081
> > > The application uses both pl/sql and livehtml cartridges
> > >
> > > Before, we had most our applications and its required procedures in a
> > > "catch-all" schema,
> > > say we call it bob. bob had packages and procedures for this
 application
> > > and many other applications. The bob schema also has these WSGL*
 packages
> > > which we've created using scripts that came with Designer 1.3.2's client
 (I
> > > know! It's old!).
> > >
> > > We then wanted to separate each application into their own schema for
 easier
> > > maintenance/administration. So, for the bob application, we use the bob
> > > schema, and the john application will use the john schema, etc.
> > >
> > > Since all our other applications will be using these WSGL* packages, we
> > > decided to implement a similar type of setup as Oracle did for their
> > > Application Server - using a "public" schema (like oas_public) to hold
 these
> > > public objects. This general/public schema we called wsgl_public. We
> > > granted execute to public on all it's objects (just procedures and
> > > packages.) Then we created public synonyms to the objects in
 wsgl_public.
> > > So theoretically, both the bob and john applications will be able to use
 the
> > > procedures/packages they need from the wsgl_public schema.
> > >
> > > Most applications seem to work okay, except for just one part of the bob
> > > application. It seems to be able to execute its required WSGL procedure
> > > from the wsgl_pulic schema, but the results are different. It would
 return
> > > a negative one (-1) instead of a calculated (positive) number such as
 35.
> > > If we make these WSGL procedures local to the bob schema, it returns the
> > > expected results.
> >
> > Is it just calculations? Or is there some data retrieval of any kind
> > involved? I suspect the latter - if so, check priveleges; keep in mind
> > that grants need to be made to the user directly, or (as you use 8i) with
> > invokers' rights.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > So my question is - does our configuration sound valid? Did I miss
> > > something? I'll be happy to provide more information if needed.
> > >
> >
> > Works OK for me, but again, grants need to be made to the user(s)
> > directly.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot in advance!
> > > Verna
> >
Received on Mon Oct 09 2000 - 19:35:03 CEST