On 05/31/21 12:45, Chapman Flack wrote: > allow-until-degraded. In 17, that would be treated as allow, but with > the warning suppressed. In 17+n, wherever functional degradation starts, > it should become equivalent to disallow. > ... > the future "degradation", but commit to one easily-detected "degradation" > that will happen no later than any other. Maybe it could be > getSecurityManager()=null, for example, which is easier to test than
Ok, that was a small thinko. As long as allow-until-degraded becomes equivalent to disallow as soon as any degradation starts, then catching the exception from setSecurityManager will be a perfectly reliable way to detect the degradation. :) Regards, -Chap
