> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based 
> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. 
> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the 
> current subject differently. See the spec change in the `Subject.java` file 
> for details. When the Security Manager APIs are finally removed in a future 
> release, this new implementation will be only implementation for these 
> methods.
> 
> One major change in the new implementation is that `Subject.getSubject` 
> always throws an `UnsupportedOperationException` since it has an 
> `AccessControlContext` argument but the current subject is no longer 
> associated with an `AccessControlContext` object.
> 
> Now it's the time to migrate from the `getSubject` and `doAs` methods to 
> `current` and `callAs`. If the user application is simply calling 
> `getSubject(AccessController.getContext())`, then switching to `current()` 
> would work. If the `AccessControlContext` argument is retrieved from an 
> earlier `getContext()` call and the associated subject might be different 
> from that of the current `AccessControlContext`, then instead of storing the 
> previous `AccessControlContext` object and passing it into `getSubject` to 
> get the "previous" subject, the application should store the `current()` 
> return value directly.

Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional 
commits since the last revision:

 - JMX needs SM
 - Resolve Alan's comments

-------------

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17472/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17472/files/75df9b0d..a16472fb

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17472&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17472&range=00-01

  Stats: 89 lines in 10 files changed: 36 ins; 16 del; 37 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17472.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/17472/head:pull/17472

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17472

Reply via email to