> On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Wang Weijun <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >>> 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”? > > Consistent with security.provider.<N> specified in java.security. > > For security providers in a named module, they must be a service provider. > Security providers can also be a service provider that will help migration. > > security.provider.<N> must specify the name of the security provider which is > used to compare with the providers loaded by ServiceLoader. A security > provider can choose to use its fully-qualified classname be the provider name > if you like. Provider::getName is used to match the specified name (see > sun.security.jca.ProviderConfig.ProviderLoader) > > If the provider is not found via service loader, i.e. > security.provider.<N>=<fully-qualified classname> for legacy security > providers in unnamed module, it will call Class.forName and newInstance to > construct the security provider instance. All packages in unnamed modules > are exported and so Class::newInstance call will succeed (java.base can read > unnamed module in the implementation).
In keytool help, we will write -provider <providername> Add a security provider with its name -providerArg <arg> Optional argument for -provider above -providerClass <providerclass> Add a security provider with its class name -providerArg <arg> Optional argument for -providerClass above This is also what you are thinking about, right? You think the implementation should strictly match the help above, and I think we can treat -provider and -providerClass the same and perform a try-name-first-try-class-second trick just like what sun.security.jca.ProviderConfig.ProviderLoader::load is doing. The -providerClass was introduced in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4938224: To avoid confusion, the -provider option should be renamed to -providerClass. The -provider should still be supported (although not documented) for compatibility. I still see 3 regression tests using -provider this way and I don't want to break them. --Max > >> >> 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? >> > > See above. > > Mandy > >> Thanks >> Max >> >>> >>> Mandy