Hi,
I'd like to propose that we remove the print statements from the
provider loading code in java.security.Security, as with the attached
patch. It wasn't recieved well when proposed [1] and now actually
makes tests fail on libgcj [2].
I personally find it rather amateurish -- they look like debug
statements and they can't be turned off.
Alternatively, how about printing them only if a DEBUG constant is set
to 'true'?
Cheers,
--
Casey Marshall || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q1/msg00659.html
[2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2004-10/msg00084.html
"Oh - sorry! I was reading the baked potato timer by mistake! Will
people not leave that in here? It just makes us look like we don't
know what the hell we're doing!" -- Red Dwarf, "Blue".
Index: java/security/Security.java
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/java/security/Security.java,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -b -B -r1.31 Security.java
--- java/security/Security.java 11 Oct 2004 13:20:37 -0000 1.31
+++ java/security/Security.java 14 Oct 2004 03:47:19 -0000
@@ -82,19 +82,9 @@
if (!loadProviders (base, "classpath")
&& !loaded
&& providers.size() == 0)
- {
- // No providers found and both security files failed to load properly.
- System.err.println
- ("WARNING: could not properly read security provider files:");
- System.err.println
- (" " + base + "/security/" + vendor + ".security");
- System.err.println
- (" " + base + "/security/" + "classpath" + ".security");
- System.err.println
- (" Falling back to standard GNU security provider");
+ // If no provider file was found, install our default provider.
providers.addElement (new gnu.java.security.provider.Gnu());
}
- }
// This class can't be instantiated.
private Security()
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
