> On Nov 17, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Bradford Wetmore
> wrote:
>
>try (PrintWriter out = new PrintWriter(FILENAME)) {
>Files.lines(path)
>.filter(x -> !x.trim().startsWith("crypto.policy"))
>.forEach(out::println);
>}
Not very sure.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wetmore/8169335/webrev.02
Looks fine to me.
BTW, I was just wondering, do you want to allow empty security property
(cryptoPolicyProperty.length() is 0) as well?
Xuelei
On 11/17/2016 9:33 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
On 11/16/2016 4:14 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
On 11/16/2016 4:14 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:10 AM, Bradford Wetmore
wrote:
Current iteration:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wetmore/8169335/webrev.01
Changes:
1. Using Debug "jca" instead of "policy"
2. Using debug.println (System.err), as the other jca calls ar
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:10 AM, Bradford Wetmore
> wrote:
>
>
> Current iteration:
>
>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wetmore/8169335/webrev.01
>
> Changes:
>
> 1. Using Debug "jca" instead of "policy"
>
> 2. Using debug.println (System.err), as the other jca calls are also using
> it.
Current iteration:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~wetmore/8169335/webrev.01
Changes:
1. Using Debug "jca" instead of "policy"
2. Using debug.println (System.err), as the other jca calls are also
using it.
3. Added regression test. Strips out any crypto.policy entry to create
a new fi
Looks fine.
--Sean
On 11/15/16 10:45 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
Good suggestions, thanks.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8043252/webrev.02
--Jamil
On 11/15/2016 06:18 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
41 System.setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());
This is strange. I sup
In the recent jdk8u-dev edits of this file for 8157561, we introduced a
debug field based on this key :
Debug.getInstance("jca", "Cipher");
Can we continue to use 'jca' to be consistent for people upgrading ?
for the testcase, I guess you can edit
test/javax/crypto/CryptoPermission/TestUnlimi
