[ 
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-583?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=356166#comment-356166
 ] 

Tibor Digana commented on SUREFIRE-583:
---------------------------------------

@Justin
Would you provide logs from the command "mvn -X -e test" ?

> When forking and specifying a JVM, that JVM's security policy's JCE providers 
> are not loaded, JAVA_HOME's are
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SUREFIRE-583
>                 URL: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-583
>             Project: Maven Surefire
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: process forking
>    Affects Versions: 2.4.2
>         Environment: Windows, JAVA_HOME is Sun JDK 1.6.0u16, forked JVM is 
> IBM JDK for WAS 6.1
>            Reporter: Justin Searls
>            Assignee: Tibor Digana
>             Fix For: Backlog
>
>
> Premise: 
> My test needs to run on the IBM JDK to work, but for other reasons I need to 
> actually build on the Sun JVM. My application's tests are relying on 
> libraries that use a message digest ("SHA", not "SHA1") that I can only find 
> support for in the BouncyCastle JCE provider. 
> Setup:
> 1. So I've identified in my plugin configuration something like 
> <jvm>/path/to/ibm/jdk/jre/bin/javaw.exe</jvm>
> 2. Added BouncyCastle JCE provider jar to /path/to/ibm/jdk/jre/lib/ext
> 3. Setup BouncyCastle as the sole JCE provider in 
> /path/to/ibm/jdk/jre/lib/security/java.security
> Expected Result: Designated IBM JVM would look for its java.security file and 
> load its jre/lib/ext JARs when executing tests
> Actual Result: No such effect. After going through the same setup on my Sun 
> JDK (which I'm running Maven with), that did have the effect of actually 
> providing that provider and getting past the error I was experiencing.
> It seems to me that if you fork to a different JVM, that JVM's security 
> policy should be used. Given the complexity of this API, however, I wouldn't 
> be surprised to hear that there's a major technical hurdle in implementing 
> this, however.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.6#6162)

Reply via email to