I think VM should protect those properties which can affect VM behavior and lead to VM crash or malfunction if are set incorrectly in command line or by a JVMTI tools. I don't see any need for protecting other properties.
Thanks. Ivan On 12/15/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could argue with Pavel that we have to have read only system properties which cannot be set from JVMTI. The specification doesn't say that it is necessary to have read only properties, it just mentions that SetSystemProperty may return an error JVMTI_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE<http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jvmti/jvmti.html#JVMTI_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE>if a property is not writable. But which properties are writable or not is not specified. From the patch it seems Sun doesn't allow JVMTI to set java.vm.vendor, java.vm.version, java.vm.name and java.vm.info. But I don't really like to disallow things for no apparent reason. So my question is, should be have read only properties like Sun? What do you think? 2006/12/8, Pavel Rebriy (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [drlvm][jvmti] Check of settable system properties > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HARMONY-2544 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2544 > Project: Harmony > Issue Type: Bug > Components: DRLVM > Reporter: Pavel Rebriy > > > According to Java Specification [1] it is necessary to have some read only > system properties. > > Here is a test created on reference VM behavior to check if system > property is settable or not. > > [1] > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jvmti/jvmti.html#SetSystemProperty > > > -- > 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 > > > -- Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division
