Re: [cp-patches] RFC: checking for socklen_t

2006-01-02 Thread Andreas Tobler
Christian Thalinger wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 23:42 +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: Well, he hasn't yet, but I'll add my comment here. I'd like to see it as an unsigned int and not an int. Most systems I know use unsigned int for socklen_t. Posix.1g also recommends to use uint32_t for

[cp-patches] java.security.Security

2006-01-02 Thread Raif S. Naffah
hello there, this is a patch for the above class. the corresponding ChangeLog entry follows: 2006-01-03 raif [EMAIL PROTECTED] * java/security/Security.java (getProvider): Ensures provider's name is not null, not an empty string, and is trimmed before usage. cheers; rsn

Re: [cp-patches] java.security.Security

2006-01-02 Thread Mark Wielaard
Hi, On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 01:34 +1100, Raif S. Naffah wrote: 2006-01-03 raif [EMAIL PROTECTED] * java/security/Security.java (getProvider): Ensures provider's name is not null, not an empty string, and is trimmed before usage. This is fine, please commit. BTW. Note that