On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 18:45:41 GMT, Sean Mullan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi @seanjmullan, sorry if you already discussed this, but have you >> considered just appending the contents of `<filename>` at the end of >> `java.security`? Is there any other downside, besides the increased size of >> the resource file? If the most likely use-case doesn't override a bunch of >> properties, the size waste could remain moderate. >> >> That approach would automatically address the properties overriding >> (`<filename>` content goes after `java.security` content) and support >> `include` directives, without the need to parse the properties files and >> manually track the overrides. > > Do you mean the file in the `include` directive? The problem with that is > that file may not exist on the system you are running the `jlink` command > from. > > Or did you mean the file containing the properties you want to override? The > latter would work, although it could be confusing to have more than one > property with different values to someone reading the file manually. Perhaps > it would be ok if I inserted a comment stating that properties below this > line will override the above properties with the same name. The other thing is that if we did the latter, it may be debatable how valuable this option is, when you could just do something like a `cat props >> conf/security/java.security` :) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30635#discussion_r3060003519
