dering, but would it not be an option to just keep using the last
LTS that has the SM? That may well enable you to keep using the SM for
something like 10 years?
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter.
>
> On 27/04/2022 3:38 am, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
>>
>&
e 1 lemming who is using the tool as intended, the costs of
maintaining it are seemingly too high.
Kind regards,
Arjan
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
> *From:* arjan tijms
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 17, 2022 1:29:04 PM
> *To:* B
work required to maintain it vs the
practical benefits are non-optimal, at least with the current way the
security manager and its permissions and policies work.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2. The concern here is for
HTTP/1.1. We'll likely exclude client-cert for HTTP/2.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
>
>
> Xuelei
> ------
> *From:* jdk-dev on behalf of arjan tijms <
> arjan.ti...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday,
TP/2 we'll have to specify something along the lines of the
client-cert authentication mechanism not working at all, or working in a
limited capacity (for the entire domain only).
Unfortunately that (potential) change can not be applied to HTTP/1.1.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
> */
> > public abstract Principal getSubjectDN();
> >
> > Maybe the original writer meant "deprecated"? If so, maybe it's time to
> > deprecate the denigrated term here, and formally deprecate getSubjectDN?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Arjan Tijms
> >
>
ported target of
Servlet. Hope the above helps.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
here is for
HTTP/1.1. We'll likely exclude client-cert for HTTP/2.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
