I talked to Julian, and Jikes RVM no longer has a functional need for this particular patch. In the long run, getting a nice break between SecurityManager and a VMSecurityManager would be good for our performance, but the current code is functionally ok. Our suggestion would be to cancel this particular patch in favor of a more complete refactoring of this code to get a nice VMSecurityManager class we could provide our own implementation of after 0.06 come out.
--dave
Mark wrote:
> - There is still one open patch for SecurityManager/VMSecurityManager
> http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=1031&group_id=85
> Don't know how urgent this is. I would like to see a real design how
> to handle this and related methods in a VM independent way, but that
> is probably not 0.06 material. (JRVM hackers, how important is it
> that this goes in? We can always add a hack for 0.06 if that really
> helps you out.)
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
