Re: FGAC and EMP_BASE_TABLE

That view he created was for a "self-referencing table" problem if you'd notice. If you won't encounter this kind of predicament then you won't need to create 'em views.

Seen asktom's article? Someone asked that same question:

http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:16292656294869254490::NO::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID,F4950_P8_CRITERIA:4632007035731,

gnuoytr_at_rcn.com (robert) wrote in message news:<da3c2186.0406010630.328f4801_at_posting.google.com>...
> have been reading up on FGAC and would prefer this to an app. code
> approach. one issue is this:
>
> in Mr. Kyte's article, the section Example 2.... , there is this
> excerpt:
>
> "Our solution is to create a view that all applications will use
> (the EMP view) and enforce our security on that view. The original
> EMP_BASE_TABLE will be used by our security policy to enforce the
> rules. ... The application and end users will never use the
> EMP_BASE_TABLE - only the security policy will."
>
> my question: the application i'm working with is, while it uses
> Oracle as database (and DB2 sometimes, but that's another episode),
> wrapped by a very odd 4GL, which generates SQL kind of on-the-fly
> (kind of, because i've not yet determined how much of our 4GL gets
> saved as SQL, etc.). i don't have the option to create tables and
> views (near as i can see, there are none of the latter). so, would
> this approach work if the opposite is true: the users see the base
> tables (because mountains of code exist referencing them), while the
> security policy sees the views, which can be created and the app. code
> is none the wiser.
>
> thanks,
> robert
Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 03:44:48 CEST