On 06/09/2016 04:38 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Sean,
Can you please help reviewing this? I suppose we don't need to file CCC
for this, right?
Right, since it was covered in a previous CCC.
There is already an earlier one under 7191662 and this
is just updating comments in java.security file.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157881
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8157881/webrev.00/
36 # specify either the provider name or the name of provider class
37 # and priority in the format
since you describe the difference between provName and className below,
I suggest simplifying this sentence as:
"specify the provider and priority in the format"
57 # There must be at least one provider specification in java.security.
58 # There is a default provider that comes standard with the JDK. It
59 # is called the "SUN" provider. Thus, the "SUN" provider is registered
60 # via the following:
61 #
62 # security.provider.1=SUN
63 #
This whole paragraph is a bit out-of-date. There is more than one
provider included in the JDK. And the SUN provider is not always the #1
provider (ex: on Solaris). That first sentence is a little odd too, do
we really check if there is at least one provider?
My thought is to remove this whole paragraph - it doesn't seem useful
and is out-of-date.
--Sean
