Just looked it up. The Javadoc for SensitivePluginAttribute says "... value should not be displayed in log messages anywhere and should be hashed instead." So this seems mostly about printing.
Sent from my iPhone > On 2014/05/28, at 9:14, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think "masked" implies printing where as "sensitive" is more abstract. If > this attribute is only for printing, then "masked" makes sense. > > > Cheers, > Paul > > >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is this for passwords? If so, then how about "masked" for the attrib name? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2014/05/28, at 8:59, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> That's exactly what I was thinking. I've just been procrastinating. >>> >>> >>>> On 27 May 2014 18:40, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It seems to me that we should get rid of SensitivePluginAttribute in favor >>>> of adding an optional "sensitive" or "secret" attribute to >>>> SensitivePluginAttribute. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, we need to duplicate all of the recent add-ons to >>>> PluginAttribute into SensitivePluginAttribute. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
