Peter Donald wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:48, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > So - would it be possible to restrict the hardening to Phoenix, leaving the
> > framework open and unsecure? I think this will save the framework from
> > being commited to a very small target, and allow Phoenix to be as secure as
> > possible.
>
> I would go for securing excalibur (components) and cornerstone (server
> components) but leave rest as is. Phoenix will eventually (as soon as I get
> the time) be "hardened" or will offer a "hardened" mode if performance
> penalty becomes too much. The few components in framework (ie Default*) are
> secure enough while still being extensible. They are not totally secure (they
> contain protected methods and live in unsealed jar) but are OK ;)
I have no problem with sealing the Framework jar. All Package sealing does
is prevent new classes from being included in the same package as the sealed
ones. You can still extend the classes as long as they are in different packages.
Like this:
------------------------
/*****************
* This is legal *
* if framework *
* is sealed *
*****************/
package my.package
import org.apache.avalon.framework.component.DefaultComponentManager;
class MyComponentManager extends DefaultComponentManager
{
}
------------------------
/*********************
* This is not legal *
* if framework is *
* sealed *
*********************/
package org.apache.avalon.framework.component;
class MyComponentManager extends DefaultComponentManager
{
}
------------------------
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
