> Why is the user's name in the role's table assumed to have the same
> column name as in the user's table?
>
> I think a lot of people already discussed about this topic,
> and I know how to correctly manage the configuration,
> but I still don't understand why this limitation has been introduced.
>
> I know I can easly extend the class
> org.apache.catalina.realm.JDBCRealm
> to add a new attribute and override the query used to retrieve the
> user's roles
> (this is what I've been doing) but I don't want to rebuilt my project
> each time
> I change the version of the application server just to be sure that my
> class
> extendes the correct class.
>
> Wouldn't be easyer to add an attribute "userRoleNameCol" to the
> standard JDBCRealm
> If that value is missing, than the column name can be supposed to be
> equal to the
> column name in the user's table.
>
> Note: I don't think it's right to write the DB according to what the
> application server imposes!
> Also because many times I develop applications based on the customer
> DB, therefore I can
> not change it!
>
A general DB structure, according to me, is:
users table;
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| us_name | varchar(16) | | PRI | | |
| us_pwd | varchar(16) | | | | |
+-----------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
user roles table;
+-----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| ur_user | varchar(16) | | PRI | | |
| ur_role | varchar(16) | | PRI | | |
+-----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
