On 30/06/21 12:10 pm, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 30/06/2021 05:51, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
In the case we are dealing with, the class is always
"org.apache.tools.ant.types.Permissions". It will always be loaded by
one single classloader (so classloaded just once). However, multiple
different insta
On 30/06/2021 05:51, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
In the case we are dealing with, the class is always
"org.apache.tools.ant.types.Permissions". It will always be loaded by
one single classloader (so classloaded just once). However, multiple
different instances of this class will get created during th
Hello Max,
On 30/06/21 2:42 am, Wei-Jun Wang wrote:
On Jun 29, 2021, at 3:08 AM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
On 29/06/21 12:34 pm, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Out of all these 4 points, I think if point number 2 can be addressed such that
it just prints only once the warning for each caller class, the
> On Jun 29, 2021, at 3:08 AM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/21 12:34 pm, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Out of all these 4 points, I think if point number 2 can be addressed such
>> > that it just prints only once the warning for each caller class, then the
>> > issue noted by u
On 29/06/2021 08:04, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
Thank you Alan. I see that
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8269543 has been created for
this. I'll keep a watch on that one.
Yes, that was the original intention but had to dropped because it
wasn't thread safe.
BTW: I'm puzzled as to w
On 29/06/21 12:34 pm, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Out of all these 4 points, I think if point number 2 can be
addressed such that it just prints only once the warning for each
caller class, then the issue noted by users of Ant build file will be
drastically reduced. I haven't yet tried or prove
On 29/06/21 12:21 am, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 28/06/2021 18:16, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
On a slightly related note, I was wondering why we decided to go with
what appears to be a bit more aggressive approach to these warning
messages as compared to what was done with the illegal reflective
acce
On 28/06/2021 18:16, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
On a slightly related note, I was wondering why we decided to go with
what appears to be a bit more aggressive approach to these warning
messages as compared to what was done with the illegal reflective
access warnings? I would have thought that the il
(resending from the correct subscribed address)
Given the recent changes around the Java SecurityManager deprecation,
the Ant project has been asking for user feedback on how this change
impacts them with their Ant build files/tasks. So far we have received
two separate user reports around thi
