On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 01:34:52 GMT, Valerie Peng <valer...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> But I think simply omitting a service name is a better solution because in >> such case we can check the algorithm against the whole >> `jdk.crypto.disabledAlgorithms` property in one call without specifying the >> service name: >> `CryptoAlgorithmConstraints.permits(algo)` > > Well, with the current list of 4 supported services, they don't generally > share the algorithm names. Thus, I don't see a lot of sense of doing this. > Personally, I'd view omitting of service as an oversight. Not sure how > commonly used it is. If there is no strong need for supporting wildcard, then > I'd not do it at least for this iteration. This is my personal preference. If > there are strong reasons and usage scenarios driving wildcard support, then I > am open for it. I see, makes sense. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26377#discussion_r2262799299
