Yes. I will file the follow-up bugs listed in the PR soon, and the first of these will be to remove all calls to doPrivileged. My plan is to file an umbrella task with separate bugs for each module that can then be split and done in parallel by different developers.

-- Kevin


On 10/9/2024 5:17 PM, John Hendrikx wrote:

Does this mean all the ugly AccessController.doPrivileged code can be simplified?

--John

On 09/10/2024 16:22, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
I just took the PR out of Draft, so it is now ready for review.

-- Kevin


On 10/2/2024 8:20 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
I suspect people who are using SecurityManager with JavaFX are still on java8.

Very likely.

-- Kevin


On 10/2/2024 7:58 AM, Andy Goryachev wrote:

Good riddance!  I suspect people who are using SecurityManager with JavaFX are still on java8.

-andy

*From: *openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-r...@openjdk.org> on behalf of Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>
*Date: *Wednesday, October 2, 2024 at 07:46
*To: *openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev@openjdk.org>
*Subject: *Proposal: Remove support for running JavaFX with the security manager

The Java Security Manager was deprecated for removal in JDK 17 by JEP
411 [1]. The next step in the evolution of removing the security manager is to permanently disable it as proposed by candidate JEP 486 [2]. Once
this is done, System::getSecurityManager will unconditionally return
null, System::setSecurityManager will unconditionally throw
UnsupportedOperationException, and running "java -Dsecurity.manager"
will cause the VM to exit with a fatal error. This will either happen in
JDK 24 (likely) or 25 (in case it misses 24). Either way, it will soon
be gone.

I propose to remove support for running JavaFX applications with a
security manager in JavaFX 24. Any JavaFX application that uses a
security manager will necessarily need to use JDK 21.x LTS going
forward, and thus can similarly use JavaFX 21.x LTS. See JDK-8341090 [3].

Comments?

-- Kevin

[1] https://openjdk.org/jeps/411
[2] https://openjdk.org/jeps/486
[3] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341090



Reply via email to