ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <stev...@iseran.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Adding Permissions / Security Manager to Java task and JUnit task
Date Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:08:08 GMT
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
> See :
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22533
> 
> I am quoting Martijn Kruithof :
> 
> The following bug reports are associated with Security Manager issues:
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6323 and
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11459
> I have written an patch / contribution to add permission handling to the
> code
> run inside the Java and JUnit tasks via a common permissions type.
> The reason no specific permission task has been made with in there nested
> the
> JUnit or Java task is that the tasks may need permissions that the code run
> by
> these tasks may not have.
> Manual testing has been performed under JDK 1.4.2 and automated test cases
> have
> been added.
> The build of dist-lite and test is verified to succeed under JDK 1.4.2
> The new and modified test cases have been verified to succeed under JDK
> 1.2.2.
> (Lots of Failures/Errors there in base!)
> 
> I will start with my +1

I am +1. Indeed, I have patched my own copy and been playing with it.

I still think it would be nice to turn on exit catching in <java> 
classic, so that non-forking exits get caught. But it is hard to do that 
without risking backwards compatibility.


One option could be to say that the combination of fork==false && 
failonerror!=null turns on the security manager, as setting the 
failonerror flag in a non-forked <java> was meaningless till now -we 
couldnt catch the failure to decide whether or not to act on it.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message