On 11/22/2010 05:39 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
After looking at all this, I'm thinking in terms of pushing the problem up a layer, and requiring a File argument instead of a String. That makes the idea of local File'ness explicit.
That doesnt look right to me. A File with a name ending in - or * is not a true File.
There is only one use of SharedActivationPolicyPermission in the River production code, in ActivateWrapper. The remaining calls are all tests which we can modify or drop as appropriate. I'm inclined to the view that a test that passes a string that does not conform to FilePermission policy string semantics should expect an IllegalArgumentException from the constructor.
Hmm, how can we be sure what a FilePermission string looks like on a future system? It is a bug to pass a URL, but i'm back peddling on throwing an exception. A warning maybe, or a logging statement?
