On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 21:27, Andrew Dinn <ad...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2021 23:06, David Black wrote:
> > I don't think that this thinking is unique but it might not be worth
> > the "cost" to Oracle to maintain something that seemingly for various
> > reasons Oracle has little interest in maintaining (we're not in
> > applet-land anymore). I would like to encourage proposals that mean
> > that people who want to do 4, who implement further security hardening
> > where others seemingly shy away, can continue to do 4.
> Please don't do that. The cost Ron is talking about is not to "Oracle".
> It is a cost to the OpenJDK project as a whole.
Sorry about that, that is a good point.
> Likewise, the lack of project team interest in maintaining the security
> manager and self-evident interest in applying resources to providing
> other, more valuable Java capabilities is not simply restricted to
> "Oracle" project members.
>
> regards,
>
>
> Andrew Dinn
> -----------
> Red Hat Distinguished Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd
> Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
> Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill
>
--
David Black / Security Engineer.
