On 28/06/2021 18:16, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
On a slightly related note, I was wondering why we decided to go with
what appears to be a bit more aggressive approach to these warning
messages as compared to what was done with the illegal reflective
access warnings? I would have thought that the illegal reflective
access changes would be much more involved if not the same level as
moving away from setSecurityManager calls.
The typical SM setup will be to set it once, the Ant "same JVM" scenario
where it sets and then resets it may be unusual.
In any case, the original implementation patch did have caching to avoid
duplicates. It wasn't quite right and had to be pulled, it may be time
to re-visit that to avoid too much noise for code that sets it many times.
-Alan.
