ngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Stefan Bodewig
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 15:04
> An: dev@ant.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Impact of Java SecurityManager being deprecated for removal
> post Java 17
>
> On 2021-09-19, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Aug
We could also mark these tasks as deprected and remove them with a 1.11.x
release (sometimes in the future).
Jan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Stefan Bodewig
Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. September 2021 15:04
An: dev@ant.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Impact of Java SecurityManager being deprecated
On 2021-09-19, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 17:39, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2021-08-19, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 12:01, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I didn't mean the Antlib to be backwards compatible, but rather to offer
it and te
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 17:39, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2021-08-19, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 12:01, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> >> I didn't mean the Antlib to be backwards compatible, but rather to offer
> >> it and tell people to switch over to it. It would be th
On 23/08/21 9:17 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2021-08-23, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
On 19/08/21 3:23 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2021-08-19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Hello Stefan,
On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
At a cursory glance I only see JUnitTask and ExecuteJava deal with the
Securi
On 2021-08-23, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> On 19/08/21 3:23 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2021-08-19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>>> Hello Stefan,
>>> On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
At a cursory glance I only see JUnitTask and ExecuteJava deal with the
SecurityManager if permissions ha
On 2021-08-19, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 12:01, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> I didn't mean the Antlib to be backwards compatible, but rather to offer
>> it and tell people to switch over to it. It would be the first time we'd
>> remove a core feature of Ant completely, th
On 19/08/21 3:23 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2021-08-19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Hello Stefan,
On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
At a cursory glance I only see JUnitTask and ExecuteJava deal with the
SecurityManager if permissions have been defined. Where else do we use
one?
From wha
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 at 12:01, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I didn't mean the Antlib to be backwards compatible, but rather to offer
> it and tell people to switch over to it. It would be the first time we'd
> remove a core feature of Ant completely, though, so we may need to
> discuss whether there is
On 2021-08-19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> ... One migration option might be to offer an antlib containing the
>> permissions stuff and deprecate the core types - and remove them from
>> core once the next Java LTS version without SecurityManager arrives.
On 2021-08-19, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Hello Stefan,
> On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> At a cursory glance I only see JUnitTask and ExecuteJava deal with the
>> SecurityManager if permissions have been defined. Where else do we use
>> one?
> From what I see in the Java task code[1],
On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2021-08-05, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Ant project will be impacted by this. Ant provides a "permissions"
type[1] whose whole goal is to integrate with the Java SecurityManager
to allow users to configure the necessary security permissions. With
the Secu
Hello Stefan,
On 19/08/21 1:15 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2021-08-05, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Ant project will be impacted by this. Ant provides a "permissions"
type[1] whose whole goal is to integrate with the Java SecurityManager
to allow users to configure the necessary security permissions.
On 2021-08-05, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> The most acute problem is this: SecurityManager seems to be involved in
> handling of return code from forked processes.
> How does JDK 17+ solve that?
JDK17 doesn't try to solve that as I understand it, the use-case of
"prevent System.exit" has been
On 2021-08-05, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Ant project will be impacted by this. Ant provides a "permissions"
> type[1] whose whole goal is to integrate with the Java SecurityManager
> to allow users to configure the necessary security permissions. With
> the SecurityManager and the APIs potentially gon
Hi,
The most acute problem is this: SecurityManager seems to be involved in
handling of return code from forked processes.
How does JDK 17+ solve that?
Regarding the permissions type: if the sandbox is gone in JDK, then
permissions should go, too.
For the reference, a summary of permissions class
Hello everyone,
Some of you might have been following the recent discussions in JDK
where the SecurityManager and related APIs will be deprecated (for
removal) starting the upcoming Java 17 release. To be clear, this change
in Java will have no impact in terms of API usage in Java 17 (except f
17 matches
Mail list logo
