Hi, On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 13:40, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > If nobody objects, this is going in later today.
I am a bit uneasy with this patch since it is not completely clear to me how the VM is supposed to restrict access to the SystemProperties class. It is a tricky interaction between the SecurityManager.checkPackageAccess() and the way runtimes implement method invocation on classes in different packages. Could you describe how this precisely works? Then we could see how hard/easy it is for the different runtimes to actually make this work. If it is really hard then I would vote for a different way of giving the "core classes" access to some of these properties. My suggestion would be to add package local VMProperties classes to each package that needs it (only 4 if I count correctly). Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
