On 2 September 2011 12:06, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 2, 2011, at 1:21, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > >> On 2 September 2011 01:20, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Specifically for StringUtils, should we have a SunStringUtils? This would >>> let you know that you are depending on com.sun code. >> >> I really don't like that idea! >> >> Generally, it is non-Sun JVMs including Android that are the problem. >> Lets just do the best we can on those. >> > But that is different that the actual issue of running under a > security manager.
1) I don't think we should create a Sun-specific class. 2) However, we should ensure that the code behaves sensibly if the Sun class is not available for whatever reason. So we should ensure that we can test for that; ideally without needing to edit the POM. For components that explicitly use sun classes, we need to be able to test both with and without Sun classes. This should be achievable with a profile, but that is not ideal. For components that rely on sun classes it would be best if the tests were always run with both settings. Then CI servers such as Gump and Continuum and Jenkins would be better placed to warn of issues. > Gary > >> Stephen >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
