DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6599>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6599 Fork in javadoc is not needed if you added a security manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Fork is not needed. |Fork in javadoc is not | |needed if you added a | |security manager ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-02-20 23:23 ------- I've changed the title for better redability, and now I'd like to point you to bug id#6323, which is kind of related (this is a special case). 1. we know that you can do it with a security manager 2. we even have a security manager in the source, built for java1.2 and above 3. but when you are already running in a security manager (like under an IDE) there is trouble 4. and there is more trouble related to system packages being in a different security manager. your fix, checkpermission, is a 1.2+ solution, we still have to support stuff in 1.1. and IDE hosted execution, and so cant make the change ourselves. I am glad it works for you. I am tempted to file this, with reluctance, as 'LATER'. I use reluctance as it is a symptom of a larger problem, to wit, we cant catch System.exit() calls in non-forked <java> tasks. but I wont as we may be able to treat javadoc as a special case and get away with adding the fork parameter, default=true. Could you submit your patches as a diff -u attachment to this bugrep. That way we can always point people at the solution, which may work on a case by case basis. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
