Okay, so, I think the question is still the same. Do we, or not, want to have to requirement the logging library on the classpath.
As an aside, given the choice between endorsing the library and editing the java.security file and adding the lib to the ext directory, I think endorsement is still the better option. Who knows if the deployer will have the ability to edit the java.security config. On 11/3/11 11:22 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: > Hi Chad, > > Yep that's pretty much correct I think. One clarification to the first > method, is that you would need to install the provider before the > XMLDSig provider in JDK 1.6+ to use the Santuario provider, or > explicitly name the provider when instantiating XMLSignatureFactory > etc. > > Colm. > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Chad La Joie <[email protected]> wrote: >> Colm, can you describe how you'd install the provider? My understanding >> is that there are two possible ways in which one could this. >> >> 1. You make code modifications to explicitly add the provider via the >> Provider API. So, as long as the logging libs are on your classpath >> before you do this, everything works okay. >> >> 2. You register the provider via the java.security config file and drop >> the library in the $JAVA_HOME/lib/ext directory. This method has the >> benefit of not having to modify code but the drawback that you'd still >> have to put the logging jar in the ext directory and you'd still end up >> "polluting" the classpath. >> >> On 11/3/11 10:32 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: >>> There is no longer any need to endorse anything, as it's a simple >>> matter of installing the JSR-105 provider that ships with Santuario >>> before the JDK XMLDSig provider, if you want to use the Santuario >>> implementation. >> >> >> -- >> Chad La Joie >> www.itumi.biz >> trusted identities, delivered >> > > > -- Chad La Joie www.itumi.biz trusted identities, delivered
