I don't think it's a high priority but in those rare cases where you
do interact with it, it's annoying. Maybe before we go to 1.0, we
just rename it to JSecurityManager. That would be my vote.
On Feb 19, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Les Hazlewood
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip/>
My own opinion is that, due to the smaller frequency of interacting
with a
SecurityManager directly (vs. SecurityUtils.getSubject() ), and the
that its
not much of burden. But that's just my opinion ;)
I would tend to think that unless you have to write some ClassLoader,
Securitymanager is just a class you are likely to go through only
while stepping into a new Something() during a debugging session. So I
don't think that the name collision is not such a burden.
If the community feels that it should be changed to something else,
I'm open
to the change. Maybe JSecurityManager if you want to avoid the
*Service ->
*Manager renaming.
JSecurityManager could be ok too. But I would not jump into such a
renaming right now, as there is an existing code base, and as those
who are likely to mess with the Sun SecurityManager are also likely to
understand the difference. It's not like you have redefined a String
class :)
Just my 2cts...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
