Christopher L. Shannon

> In general we have learned through a number of security reports that blindly creating any class instance is usually not the greatest idea. It would be beneficial to at...

@gtully - You are right that it may not help much in this case since it's server side config and if you have access to the file system to modify...

> I have opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-4766 to follow up. In regards to a follow up...my opinion is the validation should be done now and not as a follow and included as...

This only applies to elasticity, but would we also want to disallow eventual scans on the new [FATE](https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/b0f02ea6dec86297bd752aba73ee67ff11c06c16/core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/metadata/AccumuloTable.java#L33) table that is now part of the accumulo namespace?

This might work but definitely needs some experimenting as you said. I'm thinking through this and a concern I have with this approach is you might end up with similar...

I'm working on a draft of this change now to use for testing.

@EdColeman - Those are some interesting ideas as well, I think this may be something where we just need to test a couple approaches and see what works the best

Adding this back to elasticity and removing from 3.1.0 as this I think this not be targeting 3.1.0 since it adds a new table as mentioned in an earlier comment