From harmony-dev-return-163-apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed May 11 10:42:49 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 16241 invoked from network); 11 May 2005 10:42:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2005 10:42:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 46625 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2005 10:45:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 46546 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2005 10:45:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 46394 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2005 10:45:43 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of green@redhat.com designates 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 03:45:42 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4BAfwLW022232 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:41:58 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4BAfwO14043 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:41:58 -0400 Received: from vpn50-64.rdu.redhat.com (vpn50-64.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.64]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4BAfta8024130 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 06:41:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Java Security for Harmony From: Anthony Green To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <4281D36A.3090303@algroup.co.uk> References: <5f21a0a9577705abd531cebc48d11085@earthlink.net> <42807005.4070500@algroup.co.uk> <01f801c55541$f26d9430$8400000a@MEANMACHINE> <4280D63C.2060801@algroup.co.uk> <4281D36A.3090303@algroup.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 03:41:11 -0700 Message-Id: <1115808071.4765.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 10:42 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: > I'm more interested in the modularity with this question - by the sound > of it, the verifier is an optional module. No, a conforming implementation requires a bytecode verifier. AG