That's what I get for pawing around in the JDK7 code instead of the JDK8 code...
I'm surprised this is a sub interface to private key etc rather than just having this added to the sun implementations. Doing it this way isn't backwards compatible and is going to blow up a number of other providers. Also, there are keys where you really can't destroy them without physically destroying the container. In any event - thanks! Mike At 01:17 PM 6/14/2013, Vincent Ryan wrote: >Thanks Mike. Both those classes were extended, as you suggest, for JDK 8: > > <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/8ee6d45348ba>http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/8ee6d45348ba > >A separate effort is also underway to enhance the classes that implement >SecretKey and PrivateKey. > >Applications may first check whether a key class is an instance of Destroyable >or they may call the key's destroy method and handle the possible exception. > > >On 14 Jun 2013, at 17:42, Michael StJohns wrote: > >>Generic questions for possible future work: >> >>As a general guideline, would it make sense to add >>javax.security.auth.Destroyable to the set of interfaces for SecretKey and >>PrivateKey implementation objects where possible? >> >>Should the methods that use secret and private keys check to see if those >>keys implement the Destroyable interface to see if they should call >>isDestroyed() from that interface prior to using the key? >> >>Mike
