Any comments on this?
We're using this patch in libgcj already. I looked at the reference
VMClassLoader, and it seems to have the ProtectionDomain variant of
defineClass. Is there a reason to hold off checking this in?
Tom
Index: ChangeLog
from Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* java/lang/reflect/Proxy.java (generate): Pass protection domain
to VMClassLoader.defineClass.
Index: java/lang/reflect/Proxy.java
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/java/lang/reflect/Proxy.java,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 Proxy.java
--- java/lang/reflect/Proxy.java 8 Oct 2003 18:31:34 - 1.10
+++ java/lang/reflect/Proxy.java 8 Oct 2003 18:35:59 -
@@ -1326,12 +1326,10 @@
{
// XXX Do we require more native support here?
- // XXX This is waiting on VM support for protection domains.
-
Class vmClassLoader = Class.forName("java.lang.VMClassLoader");
Class[] types = {ClassLoader.class, String.class,
byte[].class, int.class, int.class,
- /* ProtectionDomain.class */ };
+ ProtectionDomain.class };
Method m = vmClassLoader.getDeclaredMethod("defineClass", types);
// Bypass the security check of setAccessible(true), since this
@@ -1340,7 +1338,7 @@
m.flag = true;
Object[] args = {loader, qualName, bytecode, new Integer(0),
new Integer(bytecode.length),
- /* Object.class.getProtectionDomain() */ };
+ Object.class.getProtectionDomain() };
Class clazz = (Class) m.invoke(null, args);
m.flag = false;
___
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
