You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@phoenix.apache.org by Simon Mottram <Si...@cucumber.co.nz> on 2019/10/16 03:04:37 UTC
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Hi Ankit
Getting stuck into this, but I am having trouble finding out how to
persist the ACL mutations
The updates to the mutations aren't being persisted as far as I can
tell. I see in your code you are using htable.batch().
I'm struggling to find a way to that object, I can get a PTable from
the connection using the byte[] tablename but PTable doesn't have the
batch() method.
I'm also unclear on how the htable.batch() method works with
connection.commit(). Is commit required?
I have a horrible feeling that the mutations require an Hbase
connection rather than Phoenix and I have to go direct to Hbase API
Best Regards and thanks for the help
Simon
On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 19:06 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote:
> >>would it be best to
> use the HBase API for creating the data.
> yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix Data
> type APIs are used to
> convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a
> composite key(if applicable).
> otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when using
> different data types
> other than varchar or unsigned_bigint.
>
> >> The sparse nature of the data means
> that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix
> would
> have a problem with that.
> Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem
> with that.
>
> Regards,
> Ankit Singhal
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram <
> Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > Hi Ankit
> >
> > Thats very useful, many thanks.
> >
> > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid time
> > over
> > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given that
> > I'm
> > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be
> > best to
> > use the HBase API for creating the data.
> >
> > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm just
> > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the
> > native
> > HBase API.
> >
> > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, everything
> > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data
> > means
> > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix
> > would
> > have a problem with that.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote:
> > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at
> > the
> > > HBase
> > > level.
> > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may
> > try
> > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API
> > and
> > > let us know if it works for you.
> > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try.
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs
> > > **/
> > > Properties props = new Properties();
> > > //conf = Hbase conf
> > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection)
> > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf);
> > > conn.setAutoCommit(false);
> > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate("<your upsert>");
> > > final Iterator<Pair<byte[],List<Mutation>>> iterator =
> > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false);
> > > while (iterator.hasNext()) {
> > > Pair<byte[], List<Mutation>> kvPair = iterator.next();
> > > List<Mutation> mutationList = kvPair.getSecond();
> > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst();
> > > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) {
> > > //perms is user->permissions map
> > > mutation.setACL(perms);
> > > }
> > > htable.batch(mutationList);
> > > }
> > > conn.rollback();
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram <
> > > Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > Hi Josh
> > > >
> > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to
> > respond.
> > > >
> > > > Appreciated
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote:
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on
> > top
> > > > of
> > > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on
> > > > cell
> > > > > ACLs
> > > > > which is good).
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the
> > > > TenantID
> > > > > is
> > > > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is
> > just
> > > > an
> > > > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key
> > constraint
> > > > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they
> > see
> > > > _all_
> > > > > data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users
> > > > that
> > > > > add
> > > > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own
> > > > TenantID
> > > > > and
> > > > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution
> > for
> > > > > what
> > > > > you're trying to accomplish.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote:
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of
> > very
> > > > sparse
> > > > > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase
> > > > looks
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > for the back end but I need to check that we can support
> > the
> > > > > > customer's
> > > > > > multi-tenancy requirements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer
> > > > for.
> > > > > > Any
> > > > > > info most gratefully received
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shared Data
> > > > > > ===========
> > > > > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could be
> > > > multiple
> > > > > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So for example if you had 3 records
> > > > > >
> > > > > > record1, some secret data
> > > > > > record2, some other secret data
> > > > > > record3, data? what data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We need
> > > > > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2
> > > > > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id
> > field
> > > > is a
> > > > > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at creation
> > and
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee
> > immutability
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enforced Security
> > > > > > =================
> > > > > > Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if
> > someone
> > > > just
> > > > > > edits the connection info they can sidestep all the multi-
> > > > tenancy
> > > > > > features. Our users include scientific types who will
> > want to
> > > > > > connect
> > > > > > directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure to
> > lock
> > > > this
> > > > > > data down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =)
> > Whether
> > > > there
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > special connection that allows non-tenanted connections or
> > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid
> > (yuck)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > HBase
> > > > > > level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Posted by Simon Mottram <Si...@cucumber.co.nz>.
Thanks for the response
I'm pretty much tied to Phoenix 4.14.2-HBase-1.4 as we are using Amazon
EMR.
Looks like I can get the table using the same deprecated method that
Phoenix does:
tablename comes from the Mutation kvPair in the original fragment
HTableInterface hTable = conn.getQueryServices().getTable(tableName);
hTable.batch(mutationList);
This saves the data without having to do a jdbc commit(). So it
'looks' like it works, which brings me to the next problem, how to
confirm!
Time to inspect the HBase API...
That's a fight for another day
Thanks again.
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 23:37 -0400, Billy Watson wrote:
> I ran into this too with other code. Make sure you’re on the same
> API. HBase 2’s APIs changed heavily so you may have to do some
> googling for docs to convert the above code into something usable in
> your version of the HBase API.
>
> Also for your original problem, I’m not sure if Apache Ranger
> supports row-level yet in their HBase plugin but you can certainly
> add that functionality to make what you’re talking about a LOT easier
> to maintain.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Billy Watson
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 23:05 Simon Mottram <
> Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > Hi Ankit
> >
> > Getting stuck into this, but I am having trouble finding out how to
> > persist the ACL mutations
> >
> > The updates to the mutations aren't being persisted as far as I can
> > tell. I see in your code you are using htable.batch().
> >
> > I'm struggling to find a way to that object, I can get a PTable
> > from
> > the connection using the byte[] tablename but PTable doesn't have
> > the
> > batch() method.
> >
> > I'm also unclear on how the htable.batch() method works with
> > connection.commit(). Is commit required?
> >
> > I have a horrible feeling that the mutations require an Hbase
> > connection rather than Phoenix and I have to go direct to Hbase API
> >
> > Best Regards and thanks for the help
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 19:06 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote:
> > > >>would it be best to
> > > use the HBase API for creating the data.
> > > yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix
> > Data
> > > type APIs are used to
> > > convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a
> > > composite key(if applicable).
> > > otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when
> > using
> > > different data types
> > > other than varchar or unsigned_bigint.
> > >
> > > >> The sparse nature of the data means
> > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix
> > > would
> > > have a problem with that.
> > > Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem
> > > with that.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ankit Singhal
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram <
> > > Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > Hi Ankit
> > > >
> > > > Thats very useful, many thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid
> > time
> > > > over
> > > > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given
> > that
> > > > I'm
> > > > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be
> > > > best to
> > > > use the HBase API for creating the data.
> > > >
> > > > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm
> > just
> > > > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the
> > > > native
> > > > HBase API.
> > > >
> > > > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system,
> > everything
> > > > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data
> > > > means
> > > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if
> > Phoenix
> > > > would
> > > > have a problem with that.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote:
> > > > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > HBase
> > > > > level.
> > > > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you
> > may
> > > > try
> > > > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal
> > API
> > > > and
> > > > > let us know if it works for you.
> > > > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try.
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs
> > > > > **/
> > > > > Properties props = new Properties();
> > > > > //conf = Hbase conf
> > > > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection)
> > > > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf);
> > > > > conn.setAutoCommit(false);
> > > > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate("<your upsert>");
> > > > > final Iterator<Pair<byte[],List<Mutation>>> iterator =
> > > > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false);
> > > > > while (iterator.hasNext()) {
> > > > > Pair<byte[], List<Mutation>> kvPair =
> > iterator.next();
> > > > > List<Mutation> mutationList = kvPair.getSecond();
> > > > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst();
> > > > > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) {
> > > > > //perms is user->permissions map
> > > > > mutation.setACL(perms);
> > > > > }
> > > > > htable.batch(mutationList);
> > > > > }
> > > > > conn.rollback();
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram <
> > > > > Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Josh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to
> > > > respond.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciated
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security
> > layers on
> > > > top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a
> > suggestion on
> > > > > > cell
> > > > > > > ACLs
> > > > > > > which is good).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the
> > > > > > TenantID
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID
> > is
> > > > just
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key
> > > > constraint
> > > > > > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then
> > they
> > > > see
> > > > > > _all_
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-
> > users
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own
> > > > > > TenantID
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good
> > solution
> > > > for
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > you're trying to accomplish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of
> > > > very
> > > > > > sparse
> > > > > > > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy.
> > Hbase
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > for the back end but I need to check that we can
> > support
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > customer's
> > > > > > > > multi-tenancy requirements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive
> > answer
> > > > > > for.
> > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > info most gratefully received
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Shared Data
> > > > > > > > ===========
> > > > > > > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could
> > be
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So for example if you had 3 records
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > record1, some secret data
> > > > > > > > record2, some other secret data
> > > > > > > > record3, data? what data.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We need
> > > > > > > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2
> > > > > > > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the
> > tenant_id
> > > > field
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at
> > creation
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee
> > > > immutability
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Enforced Security
> > > > > > > > =================
> > > > > > > > Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if
> > > > someone
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > edits the connection info they can sidestep all the
> > multi-
> > > > > > tenancy
> > > > > > > > features. Our users include scientific types who will
> > > > want to
> > > > > > > > connect
> > > > > > > > directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure
> > to
> > > > lock
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > data down.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =)
> > > > Whether
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > special connection that allows non-tenanted connections
> > or
> > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid
> > > > (yuck)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If not possible I guess we have to look at doing
> > something
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > HBase
> > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > >
>
> --
> William Watson
>
Re: Multi-Tenancy and shared records
Posted by Billy Watson <wi...@gmail.com>.
I ran into this too with other code. Make sure you’re on the same API.
HBase 2’s APIs changed heavily so you may have to do some googling for docs
to convert the above code into something usable in your version of the
HBase API.
Also for your original problem, I’m not sure if Apache Ranger supports
row-level yet in their HBase plugin but you can certainly add that
functionality to make what you’re talking about a LOT easier to maintain.
Good luck,
Billy Watson
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 23:05 Simon Mottram <Si...@cucumber.co.nz>
wrote:
> Hi Ankit
>
> Getting stuck into this, but I am having trouble finding out how to
> persist the ACL mutations
>
> The updates to the mutations aren't being persisted as far as I can
> tell. I see in your code you are using htable.batch().
>
> I'm struggling to find a way to that object, I can get a PTable from
> the connection using the byte[] tablename but PTable doesn't have the
> batch() method.
>
> I'm also unclear on how the htable.batch() method works with
> connection.commit(). Is commit required?
>
> I have a horrible feeling that the mutations require an Hbase
> connection rather than Phoenix and I have to go direct to Hbase API
>
> Best Regards and thanks for the help
>
> Simon
>
>
> On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 19:06 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote:
> > >>would it be best to
> > use the HBase API for creating the data.
> > yes, you can use HBase API but you need to ensure that Phoenix Data
> > type APIs are used to
> > convert your column values into bytes and also while creating a
> > composite key(if applicable).
> > otherwise you would not be able to read data from Phoenix when using
> > different data types
> > other than varchar or unsigned_bigint.
> >
> > >> The sparse nature of the data means
> > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix
> > would
> > have a problem with that.
> > Phoenix supports dynamic columns so you should not have a problem
> > with that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ankit Singhal
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM Simon Mottram <
> > Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > > Hi Ankit
> > >
> > > Thats very useful, many thanks.
> > >
> > > Before I dive into using Phoenix (which has given me a torrid time
> > > over
> > > the last few days!), is using Phoenix the best option given that
> > > I'm
> > > doing some low level access to Cell information, or would it be
> > > best to
> > > use the HBase API for creating the data.
> > >
> > > We would of course use Phoenix for querying the tables, I'm just
> > > wondering if the import of data would be better handled via the
> > > native
> > > HBase API.
> > >
> > > I think I only need to set labels or use the ACL system, everything
> > > else should be straight forward. The sparse nature of the data
> > > means
> > > that I will be constantly adding new columns, not sure if Phoenix
> > > would
> > > have a problem with that.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:30 -0700, Ankit Singhal wrote:
> > > > >> If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something at
> > > the
> > > > HBase
> > > > level.
> > > > As Josh said, it's not yet supported in Phoenix, Though you may
> > > try
> > > > using cell-level security of HBase with some Phoenix internal API
> > > and
> > > > let us know if it works for you.
> > > > Sharing a sample code if you wanna try.
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Do writes using cell based ACLs
> > > > **/
> > > > Properties props = new Properties();
> > > > //conf = Hbase conf
> > > > PhoenixConnection conn = (PhoenixConnection)
> > > > QueryUtil.getConnection(props, conf);
> > > > conn.setAutoCommit(false);
> > > > conn.createStatement().executeUpdate("<your upsert>");
> > > > final Iterator<Pair<byte[],List<Mutation>>> iterator =
> > > > pconn.getMutationState().toMutations(false);
> > > > while (iterator.hasNext()) {
> > > > Pair<byte[], List<Mutation>> kvPair = iterator.next();
> > > > List<Mutation> mutationList = kvPair.getSecond();
> > > > byte[] tableName = kvPair.getFirst();
> > > > for (Mutation mutation : mutationList) {
> > > > //perms is user->permissions map
> > > > mutation.setACL(perms);
> > > > }
> > > > htable.batch(mutationList);
> > > > }
> > > > conn.rollback();
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:19 PM Simon Mottram <
> > > > Simon.Mottram@cucumber.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Josh
> > > > >
> > > > > Thought as much, thanks very much for taking the time to
> > > respond.
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciated
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 11:19 -0400, Josh Elser wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phoenix does not provide any authorization/security layers on
> > > top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > what HBase does (the thread on user@hbase has a suggestion on
> > > > > cell
> > > > > > ACLs
> > > > > > which is good).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the question you're ultimately asking is: no, the
> > > > > TenantID
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not an authorization layer. In a nut-shell, the TenantID is
> > > just
> > > > > an
> > > > > > extra attribute (column) added to your primary key
> > > constraint
> > > > > > auto-magically. If a user doesn't set a TenantID, then they
> > > see
> > > > > _all_
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless you have a layer in-between Phoenix and your end-users
> > > > > that
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > extra guarantees/restrictions, a user could set their own
> > > > > TenantID
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > see other folks' data. I don't think this is a good solution
> > > for
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > you're trying to accomplish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/2/19 8:34 PM, Simon Mottram wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm working on a project where we have a combination of
> > > very
> > > > > sparse
> > > > > > > data columns with added headaches of multi-tenancy. Hbase
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > for the back end but I need to check that we can support
> > > the
> > > > > > > customer's
> > > > > > > multi-tenancy requirements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are 2 that I'm struggling to find a definitive answer
> > > > > for.
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > info most gratefully received
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shared Data
> > > > > > > ===========
> > > > > > > Each record in the table must be secured but it could be
> > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > tenants for a record. Think 'shared' data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So for example if you had 3 records
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > record1, some secret data
> > > > > > > record2, some other secret data
> > > > > > > record3, data? what data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We need
> > > > > > > user1 to be able to see record1 and record2
> > > > > > > user2 to be able to see record2 and record3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I see in the mult-tenancy doco, the tenant_id
> > > field
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > > VARCHAR, can this be multiple values?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The actual 'multiple tenant' value would be set at creation
> > > and
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > rarely (if ever) changed, but I couldn't guarantee
> > > immutability
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enforced Security
> > > > > > > =================
> > > > > > > Can you prevent access without TenantId? Otherwise if
> > > someone
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > edits the connection info they can sidestep all the multi-
> > > > > tenancy
> > > > > > > features. Our users include scientific types who will
> > > want to
> > > > > > > connect
> > > > > > > directly using JDBC/Python/Other so we need to be sure to
> > > lock
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > data down.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course they want 'admin' types who CAN see all =)
> > > Whether
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > special connection that allows non-tenanted connections or
> > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > multi-tenant key that always contains a master tenantid
> > > (yuck)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If not possible I guess we have to look at doing something
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > HBase
> > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > >
>
--
William Watson