Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-user-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 82540 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2002 13:30:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 13:30:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 17637 invoked by uid 97); 11 Apr 2002 13:30:45 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17621 invoked by uid 97); 11 Apr 2002 13:30:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Users List" Reply-To: "Ant Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 17610 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2002 13:30:44 -0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked Message-ID: From: Daniel Barclay To: Ant Users List Subject: RE: forking new jvm in ExecuteJava? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:30:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > Hey, might Ant want to use a custom Java security policy to > prevent called > > classes from (successfully) calling System.exit(0)? > > it might, but only under 1.2+, and then other things go wierd > indeed. We > cant use a security manager without risking breaking backwards > compatibility. How about a custom security manager instead of a custom security policy? The SecurityManager and checkExit() were in 1.1.x, weren't they? Daniel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: