(non-binding) +1 from me, I thought it was a bit confusing as well. Considering it doesn't enforce to authenticate or authorize, but rather makes it possible for other code to do so by providing the necessary interface, SecurityService might be appropriate. However, *Manager naming is prevalent, would need to change all of them.
Kalle On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]>wrote: > Just a thought. Should we rename this class? The fact that it's the same > name as java.lang.SecurityManager makes me a little uncomfortable. > > Again, just a thought. > > > Regards, > Alan > >
