deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] SecurityManager awareness yes/no?
Date Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:38:14 GMT
No, and there is no requirement being added to enable the SM out of the box (thankfully!).

On 12 Jun 2012, at 10:36, Mark Struberg wrote:

> Yes, that's what I feared. Do JBossAS7.1 out of the box has the SM enabled?
> 
> 
> If not we shall setup a CI job with such a situation.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>

>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SecurityManager awareness yes/no?
>> 
>> Java EE 7 will mandate that a Java EE implementation must be able to run under a
SM. It makes sense to test DS under a SM as well, IMO, as some people want it…
>> 
>> I think you can surround stuff in a "if SM enabled" block?
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2012, at 08:53, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> Do we like to be fully SecurityManager aware? SecurityManagers are always a big
performance hog, but when looking at all the (imo weird) EE7 'cloud' proposals, I have the
strong feeling that most functions will be based on excessive SecurityManager usage...
>>> How can we test this best?
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message