Thank you for contacting us and sharing the initial results of your research.
You raised two basic topics.
First, you discussed the possibility of adding additional restrictions on the
ability to change the system Security Manager multiple times during application
execution. This is normally al
On 6/25/2014 9:02 PM, Xiaomin Ding wrote:
On 6/16/2014 10:40 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 06/16/2014 09:19 AM, Frank Ding wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your reply. One further question is that you confirmed
that two AccessControlContext objects considered equal via method
equals() should return
> On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:14 PM, Frank Ding wrote:
> My questions are:
> 1. Though spec doesn't require two objects with same hashcode are equal,
> what's the particular reason that field "DomainCombiner combiner" are used
> for equal() but not hashCode()?
As you pointed out, the value returne
But be aware that this isn't a static list -- applications or middleware can
extend it at runtime (generally when they start up).
Jeff
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> Take a look at the java.security-XXX files in
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/file/tip/sr
;ll look into that a bit more.
checkPermission2 is checking the limited privilege scope.
Maybe good to rename it to something like checkLimitedPrivilegeScope
to make it explicit.
Yes, perhaps.
Jeff
On 5/28/2013 10:56 PM, Jeff Nisewanger wrote:
This is the implementation of the JE
On 5/29/2013 5:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 05/29/2013 07:56 AM, Jeff Nisewanger wrote:
The webrev is: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdn/8014097/webrev.0/
The overloads make it cumbersome to use this feature with lambda
expressions:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev
This is the implementation of the JEP 140 feature for a limited
privilege form of doPrivileged(). A test will be added in an
updated webrev within the next day.
The JEP is: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/140
The webrev is: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdn/8014097/webrev.0/
the constructor could have legally accessed the
field via static bytecode (assuming the field's declaring class
was loadable via the caller's defining class loader).
Jeff
Jeff Nisewanger said the following on 04/22/10 10:30:
On 4/16/2010 5:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Doug,
On 4/16/2010 5:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Doug,
approval as I'm not a subscriber.>
Doug Lea said the following on 04/16/10 21:43:
On 04/15/10 18:34, Martin Buchholz wrote:
People are using Atomic field updaters to update fields in classes
in other classloaders.
I think the policy on
On 4/19/2010 11:23 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Jeff, please review.
Yes, will do. I was caught up with other things last week. I will
try to go through and catch up with this discussion later today.
Jeff
10 matches
Mail list logo
