On 14 Jun 2013, at 18:40, Michael StJohns wrote: > 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.
JDK8 gives us magical default methods - so no blow ups. > Also, there are keys where you really can't destroy them without physically > destroying the container. Right. Not all implementation classes will be able to take advantage of this. > > 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 >> >> 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 >
