On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:02:03 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>>> In the compatibility risk description of the CSR:
>>>
>>> > In line with the efforts to check invalid URLs (see
>>> > [JDK-8294241](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294241): Deprecate URL
>>> > public constructors),
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
On Wed, 1 May 2024 18:34:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> I'm seeing
>
> ```
> java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
> at
> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:118)
> at
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
On Wed, 1 May 2024 15:12:10 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Just one more question on the system property expansion when it's not
> defined. In your example:
>
> > include ${java.home}/conf/security/profile${SecurityProfile}.security
>
> How bad will it be if we require user to set
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:19:55 GMT, Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet
wrote:
>> The implementation of this proposal is based on the requirements,
>> specification and design choices described in the [JDK-8319332] ticket and
>> its respective CSR [JDK-8319333]. What follows are implementation notes
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:25 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Existing legacy mechanism check disables mechanism(s) when the support is
>> partial, e.g. supports decryption but not encryption, or supports
>> verification but not signing. Some mechanisms can be used for both
>> encryption/decryption