2013/11/26 23:33 -0800, sean.mul...@oracle.com: > On 11/27/2013 03:41 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> The security providers have vestiges of Sun in the provider names (SUN, >> SunPKCS11, SunJSSE ..) but these are documented and I don't think can be >> changed (although it not recommended to select services from specific >> providers). To my knowledge, the names of the shared libraries are not >> something that anyone should depend on, they are purely an >> implementation detail. I'm sure someone in the security area with jump >> to review any proposed changes here but I wouldn't expect it to cause >> problems. > > Changing the provider names is a very high risk change to make this late > in JDK 8. If we decided to change them, I would recommend deprecating > (but not removing) the existing Sun* providers for at least one major > release to allow apps to transition. > > Removing "sun" from the names of the JAR files (ex: sunjce_provider.jar, > sunpkcs11.jar, sunec.jar) is probably less risky from a compatibility > perspective, but I would still want to think about it some more and find > out if this would break anyone. Offhand, it feels like this type of > change would be risky for JDK 8.
I didn't suggest that we remove the string "sun" from the names and content of various artifacts in the build. That's a risky and expensive change. I just want to stamp out the "j2" prefix -- one of Sun's more egregious marketing mistakes. - Mark
