I looked at the tests and thought about it some more.
I agree that it makes sense to defer the check to post the security check.
Changes look fine.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 7/23/2014 9:51 AM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Do you know which TCK tests fail? I want to check it out.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 7/23/2014 1
Do you know which TCK tests fail? I want to check it out.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 7/23/2014 1:15 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Valerie,
I agree it's not ideal, but we're doing nothing different than what
was performed in the old JDK releases...(i.e no check there either). I
can't say if many application
On 07/23/2014 07:07 AM, Tom Hawtin wrote:
On 23/07/2014 05:26, David M. Lloyd wrote:
I would suggest that one or more of the following be done to mitigate
this problem:
• Always have static initialization blocks be privileged (this does
require users to be cognizant of this fact when writing st
On 23/07/2014 05:26, David M. Lloyd wrote:
I would suggest that one or more of the following be done to mitigate
this problem:
• Always have static initialization blocks be privileged (this does
require users to be cognizant of this fact when writing static blocks)
If we were following "secure
Valerie,
I agree it's not ideal, but we're doing nothing different than what was
performed in the old JDK releases...(i.e no check there either). I can't
say if many applications would be impacted by the Card.disconnect change
going into 8u20 but we should make best efforts to preserve the old
