> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Can I say -providerClass <NAME> -providerArg <ARG> is equivalent to extending > java.security to add “security.provider.N=NAME ARG”?
Yes. > > I suggest to keep -providerClass and -providerArg only for legacy security > provider (i.e. not a service provider to java.security.Provider). > > For security providers that are converted to service provider: > > What about updating -provider <NAME>[:<ARG>] option such that (1) it accepts > “provider name” only (not class name) and (2) an optional argument? Although > it’s an incompatible change, for legacy security provider, they can still use > -providerClass option. Why must only "provider name"? We can document this way (-providerClass for legacy and -provider for new) and still treat -providerClass and -provider the same (which is what we are doing now) internally. I cannot see any harm and it is compatible. Even java.security supports both name and class now, right? Thanks Max > > Mandy
