> On Feb 18, 2016, at 1:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>
> On 18/02/2016 09:08, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> OK, but with -providerClass I'd like to support a class name even if it is
>> already defined in a module as a service and has its own name. This makes
>> sure old commands still work.
> I thin
On 18/02/2016 09:08, Weijun Wang wrote:
OK, but with -providerClass I'd like to support a class name even if
it is already defined in a module as a service and has its own name.
This makes sure old commands still work.
I think it should work fine but I assume we would want to discourage
this.
Hi Jaroslav,
Looks good.
BTW - shouldn't you take
sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/JMXInterfaceBindingTest.java
out of the problem list as well?
I see that 8147985 is fixed.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 18/02/16 09:48, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Hi,
On 17.2.2016 14:41, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Th
On 18/02/2016 02:44, Tim Du wrote:
I grep the files which are using CertificateBuilder and
SimpleOCSPServer from jake/jdk/test, the result as below:
- javax/net/ssl/Stapling/HttpsUrlConnClient.java
- javax/net/ssl/Stapling/SSLEngineWithStapling.java
- javax/net/ssl/Stapling/SSLSocketWithStapl
OK, but with -providerClass I'd like to support a class name even if it
is already defined in a module as a service and has its own name. This
makes sure old commands still work.
The existing -providerClass takes a class name and works as before. The
-provider takes the name of a security prov
On 2/18/2016 16:16, Seán Coffey wrote:
On 18/02/2016 02:09, Wang Weijun wrote:
IMO a noreg-trivial is enough.
Why ?
Because there exists noreg-trivial and this fix is trivial. Not only is
the fix simple, but also the updated line is more intuitive and normal.
This is just what a final fi
Hi,
On 17.2.2016 14:41, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Thanks Jaroslav, that's great!
If these certificates have an expiration date then
it's possible that we will have to regenerate them
from time to time...
Thanks for checking on this. I've update the certificates to have
expiration date 100 years fr
On 18/02/2016 08:10, Weijun Wang wrote:
:
Today, we tell users to load their own PKCS11 provider with
-providerClass sun.security.pkcs11.SunPKCS11 -providerArg some.cfg
and seems the new options should be
-provider SunPKCS11 -providerArg some.cfg
Why not just support all these formats?
On 18/02/2016 02:09, Wang Weijun wrote:
IMO a noreg-trivial is enough.
Why ?
Yes -- the fix may be trivial but a testcase helps ensure that no
engineer even reverts this field in the future without seeing this
issue. Code goes through churning and people forget edits made in the
past - esp
In keytool help, we will write
-providerAdd a security provider with its name
“Add a security provider by the provider’s name”
-providerArgOptional argument for -provider above
-providerClass Add a security provider with its class name
“Add a security provider b
10 matches
Mail list logo
