On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:50:26 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:50:26 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:50:26 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:20:28 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> I don't like the silent mode. If no one uses that key name, then everything
>> is fine anyway. Otherwise, if someone really sets it, it's very likely they
>> will want to read it somewhere and expect a non `null` value.
>>
>> Can we just s
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:20:28 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> I don't like the silent mode. If no one uses that key name, then everything
>> is fine anyway. Otherwise, if someone really sets it, it's very likely they
>> will want to read it somewhere and expect a non `null` value.
>>
>> Can we just s
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:50:26 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:13:17 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Code review and additional changes
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if Security.get
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 20:20:28 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> I don't like the silent mode. If no one uses that key name, then everything
>> is fine anyway. Otherwise, if someone really sets it, it's very likely they
>> will want to read it somewhere and expect a non `null` value.
>>
>> Can we just s
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:13:17 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Code review and additional changes
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if Security.get
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:53:58 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> I think throwing IAE is the cleanest approach and less likely there may be
>> unexpected behavior if we are not worried about backporting. It would break
>> any app previously using this as a property, but at least the behavior would
>> b
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:50:26 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:40:46 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Document list of reserved keys in
>> java.security.Security::getProperty/setProperty APIs.
>>
>> Co
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:40:46 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Document list of reserved keys in
>> java.security.Security::getProperty/setProperty APIs.
>>
>> Co
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:50:26 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:09:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:09:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:15:33 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
> > We've not made a decision in regards to proposing this enhancement to old
> > releases. With that said, I wouldn't consider anything older than 21u. If
> > necessary, we can make backport-specific adjustments to the CSR and be more
> > c
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 21:20:18 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
> We've not made a decision in regards to proposing this enhancement to old
> releases. With that said, I wouldn't consider anything older than 21u. If
> necessary, we can make backport-specific adjustments to the CSR and be more
> conserva
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:09:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:09:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:09:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:09:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:41:50 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Done in 580d34a63b5d3b6c7d2323413f338527db2d9acd.
>
> Thanks. You might need to update the CSR to include this in the spec change.
Yes, I updated the user guide and the CSR to reflect this behavior.
-
PR Review Comment: https:/
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:05:45 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> Yes, we can do that.
>
> Done in 580d34a63b5d3b6c7d2323413f338527db2d9acd.
Thanks. You might need to update the CSR to include this in the spec change.
-
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/1648
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:10:39 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 118:
>>
>>> 116: }
>>> 117:
>>> 118: private static void loadMaster() {
>>
>> Maybe you can rename to `loadMain`. There have been some voices aga
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:47:42 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if
>> Security.setProperty("include", ...) is invoked.
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 19:13:32 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 211:
>>
>>> 209: }
>>> 210:
>>> 211: private static void reset(LoadingMode mode) {
>>
>> The method here looks like there is a chance that `props` does not get
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:20:15 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> I like this.
>>
>> Just wondering, shall we throw IAE if `getProperty("include")` is called as
>> well? In a very rare case that someone is already using it in
>> `java.security` file and the value happens to be an existing file name, the
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:01:19 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if
>> Security.setProperty("include", ...) is invoked.
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:52:10 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if
>> Security.setProperty("include", ...) is invoked.
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:40:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Yes, that's intended. Files obtained from a URL have no issues with having
>> absolute-path includes. The only restriction for them is not to have
>> relative includes, as there isn't a file path base to resolve it.
>
> So you deploy some p
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:21:41 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 241:
>>
>>> 239: try {
>>> 240: Path path = Path.of(expPropFile);
>>> 241: if (!path.isAbsolute()) {
>>
>> So you allow a properties f
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:58:46 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if
>> Security.setProperty("include", ...) is invoked.
>>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 16:06:03 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Proposed a change here:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16483/commits/530bd81c2a73a39f00c6ba9524752f30600cd04d
>
> I like this.
>
> Just wondering, shall we throw IAE if `getProperty("include")` is called as
> well? In a very rare c
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:44:44 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Throw an IllegalArgumentException exception if
>> Security.setProperty("include", ...) is invoked.
>>
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:55:06 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:52:04 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> May be. This is a public API that only documents `SecurityException` for
>> cases in which there is a Security Manager and `NullPointerException` for
>> cases in which either the key or the value are `null`. Wouldn't be the exact
>> case
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:19:08 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 901:
>>
>>> 899: if (SecPropLoader.isInclude(key)) {
>>> 900: return;
>>> 901: }
>>
>> Don't you want to throw an exception here?
>
> May be. This is
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 21:02:50 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> two additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Ensure Security::setProperty() cannot issue an include
>>
>>Co-authored-by: Martin Balao
>>
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:41:56 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:41:56 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Fri, 3 May 2024 20:46:46 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/conf/security/java.security line 70:
>>
>>> 68: # an error is thrown and explicit profile selection is required. In
>>> order
>>> 69: # to override properties defined in this file, the include statement
>>> may be
>>>
On Fri, 3 May 2024 20:02:29 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Profiles documentation adjustments.
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari
>> Co-authored-by: Mar
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Fri, 3 May 2024 19:37:02 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Profiles documentation adjustments.
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari
>> Co-authored-by: Mar
On Fri, 3 May 2024 19:32:56 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Profiles documentation adjustments.
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari
>> Co-authored-by: Mar
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:24:19 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:24:19 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:07:03 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> The revised text is much clearer. For the last sentence, I would suggest
> rephrasing "In order to prevent profile properties from being overridden" to
> "In order to override properties defined in the main file". Isn't that your
> real pur
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Thu, 2 May 2024 20:34:22 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 19:07:50 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/conf/security/java.security line 69:
>>
>>> 67: # statement will override any matching property defined in a profile.
>>> In order
>>> 68: # to avoid this behavior, the include statement may be placed at the
>>> end of
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Thu, 2 May 2024 19:09:07 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Profiles documentation adjustments.
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari
>> Co-authored-by: Mar
On Thu, 2 May 2024 19:06:00 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request incrementally with
>> one additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Profiles documentation adjustments.
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari
>> Co-authored-by: Mar
On Thu, 2 May 2024 16:45:09 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 15:57:36 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Another comment: now that the backward compatibility code is added, is it
> still necessary to update the `DynStatic.java` test?
@wangweij: it's no longer strictly necessary. However, we decided to leave it
that way in order to lead by exam
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:59:54 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> In the new `java.security` text, you have "the file profile.security must
> exist". This is not necessary, right? I think what you meant to say is that
> "if the system property is not defined, then it will be expanded to an empty
> string
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:07:13 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:07:13 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 14:07:13 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:02:03 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>>> In the compatibility risk description of the CSR:
>>>
>>> > In line with the efforts to check invalid URLs (see
>>> > [JDK-8294241](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294241): Deprecate URL
>>> > public constructors),
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 1 May 2024 18:34:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> I'm seeing
>
> ```
> java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
> at
> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:118)
> at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.j
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 1 May 2024 15:12:10 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Just one more question on the system property expansion when it's not
> defined. In your example:
>
> > include ${java.home}/conf/security/profile${SecurityProfile}.security
>
> How bad will it be if we require user to set `SecurityProfile`
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:42:44 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:40:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request with a new target
>> base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge 'openjdk/master' into JDK-8319332
>> - Merge 'openjdk/master' into JDK
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:40:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Yes, I can see its effect on the relative include. Maybe use the deprecated
> URL constructor as a fallback when the other mechanisms fail?
Yes, that's what we have in mind. We will try to handle it as a local path and
when not possible, w
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:19:14 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:19:44 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> > > > Is it worth breaking such invalid URLs?
>
> I'm just not sure about the compatibility impact. The example
> "file:///C:\some\path\extra.properties" you gave looks quite innocent and
> could be generated by a casual script.
>
> Can t
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:31:42 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> Oh, I meant the final `else`. What does it mean if a file is neither
>> "regular" nor "directory"? Also I don't quite understand why one uses
>> `toRealPath` and one uses `toAbsolutePath`. Is this related to resolving a
>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:02:27 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi @wangweij, to complement @martinuy's answer, the following commands can
>> trigger this error message in the different described contexts:
>>
>> java -Djava.security.properties=file:///etc
>> -XshowSettings:security:properties -Djava.s
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:02:03 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
> > > Is it worth breaking such invalid URLs?
I'm just not sure about the compatibility impact. The example
"file:///C:\some\path\extra.properties" you gave looks quite innocent and could
be generated by a casual script.
Ca
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:16:34 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> In the compatibility risk description of the CSR:
>>> In line with the efforts to check invalid URLs (see
>>> [JDK-8294241](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294241): Deprecate URL
>>> public constructors), "java.security.properties" f
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 12:58:32 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 256:
>>
>>> 254: } else if (Files.isDirectory(path)) {
>>> 255: throw new IOException("Is a directory");
>>> 256: } else {
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:30:02 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request with a new target
>> base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge 'openjdk/master' into JDK-8319332
>> - Merge 'openjdk/master' into JDK
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:55:05 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> In the compatibility risk description of the CSR:
>
> > In line with the efforts to check invalid URLs (see
> > [JDK-8294241](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294241): Deprecate URL
> > public constructors), "java.security.properties"
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:30:02 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet has updated the pull request with a new target
>> base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge 'openjdk/master' into JDK-8319332
>> - Merge 'openjdk/master' into JDK
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:28:58 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> "If a system property does not have a value, it expands to the empty string."
> What's the benefit? It will be nice if you can include an example on the CSR.
Expanding to the empty string has the advantage that we can parameterize part
of
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:19:14 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:19:14 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:19:14 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
> organized per functional component, with the purpose of assisting to naviga
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 18:59:54 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 18:59:54 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
>>
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
