Re: RFR: 8294047: HttpResponseInputStream swallows interrupts [v4]

2022-12-05 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 14:09:06 GMT, Vyom Tewari wrote: >> Hmmm... Maybe a better solution would be to throw >> "ClosedByInterruptException" since we're also closing the input stream. And >> the specification of "ClosedByInterruptException" clearly state that the >> interrupt status of the thre

Re: RFR: 8303485: Replacing os.name for operating system customization [v6]

2023-03-24 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:41:02 GMT, Michael Osipov wrote: >> A bit of a quibble, several internet sources identify Linux as an operating >> system (including Redhat). > > Well, no. It is just a kernel. Without a userland not an OS. That is why they > call it GNU/Linux. Kernel + userland. If you

Re: RFR: 8325949: Create an internal utility method for creating VarHandle instances [v4]

2024-09-17 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:37:19 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - Update javadoc >> - Rename utility class > > I think a better approach to this problem might be converting these static

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager

2024-10-15 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:33:03 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> This is a bit of forced move. Same thing with Thread.checkAccess and >> ThreadGroup.checkAccess that also have to be re-specified to throw >> unconditionally. They are called out in the CSR. > > OK While I disagree with this change on th

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager

2024-10-15 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:14:58 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > While making `LogManager.checkAccess` be a no-op might be more convenient, it > could unconditionally permit operations that formerly required a permission > check: clearly a bad idea. Always throwing a `SecurityException` is the > safest

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-18 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:03:30 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8348967: Deprecate security permission classes for removal [v3]

2025-04-08 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 14:23:06 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Please review this change to terminally deprecate the following security >> related permission classes: `java.security.UnresolvedPermission`, >> `javax.net.ssl.SSLPermission`, `javax.security.auth.AuthPermission`, >> `javax.security.auth.P

Re: RFR: 8348967: Deprecate security permission classes for removal

2025-04-04 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:42:36 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > Please review this change to terminally deprecate the following security > related permission classes: `java.security.AllPermission`, > `java.security.UnresolvedPermission`, `javax.net.ssl.SSLPermission`, > `javax.security.auth.AuthPermissi

Re: RFR: 8348967: Deprecate security permission classes for removal

2025-04-04 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:42:36 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > Please review this change to terminally deprecate the following security > related permission classes: `java.security.AllPermission`, > `java.security.UnresolvedPermission`, `javax.net.ssl.SSLPermission`, > `javax.security.auth.AuthPermissi

Re: RFR: 8348967: Deprecate security permission classes for removal

2025-04-04 Thread David M . Lloyd
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:12:55 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > > > Please review this change to terminally deprecate the following security > > > related permission classes: `java.security.AllPermission`, > > > `java.security.UnresolvedPermission`, `javax.net.ssl.SSLPermission`, > > > `javax.security.a