David, I guess the better place for that would be in the documentation. Do we want to have redundant GBean definitions in configurations just to show how to use them? Or am I missing some point?
Vamsi On 12/8/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I kinda think we might want to keep the empty SystemProperties gbean to make it more obvious where to set them in config.xml. If we do this we should include an empty override in config.xml. What do others think? thanks david jencks On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy (JIRA) wrote: > [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1135?page=all ] > > Vamsavardhana Reddy closed GERONIMO-1135. > ----------------------------------------- > > Resolution: Fixed > > Removing the keystore related system properties did not seem to > break anything. Removed "SystemProperties" GBean definition > altogether from the plan since there are no properties to set. > > Fixed in rev 483612. > >> Keystore password in System.properties >> -------------------------------------- >> >> Key: GERONIMO-1135 >> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ >> GERONIMO-1135 >> Project: Geronimo >> Issue Type: Bug >> Security Level: public(Regular issues) >> Components: security >> Affects Versions: 1.0-M5 >> Reporter: Aaron Mulder >> Assigned To: Vamsavardhana Reddy >> Priority: Critical >> Fix For: 1.2, 2.0-M1 >> >> >> If you look at the System properties, the keystore and trust store >> passwords are in there. I'm not sure who puts them in there, but >> we need to find a way to stop that -- or else prevent applications >> from reading them? > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > - > If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the > administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ > Administrators.jspa > - > For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/ > software/jira > >
