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