Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-struts-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26011 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2006 20:19:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2006 20:19:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 3722 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2006 20:19:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-struts-user-archive@struts.apache.org Received: (qmail 3675 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2006 20:19:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Struts Users Mailing List" Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" Delivered-To: mailing list user@struts.apache.org Received: (qmail 3664 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2006 20:19:11 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:19:11 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jak-struts-user@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.2] (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:19:11 -0800 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FAC3r-0004UF-RQ for user@struts.apache.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:18:39 +0100 Received: from cpe00045ad20d9e-cm0011e6f60f1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([70.25.230.197]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:18:39 +0100 Received: from laurie by cpe00045ad20d9e-cm0011e6f60f1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:18:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: user@struts.apache.org From: Laurie Harper Subject: Re: [OT] Hiding methods Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:18:16 -0500 Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <43F48BD7.2000809@dkfz-heidelberg.de> <33170.170.201.180.136.1140114498.squirrel@webmail.chiron.lunarpages.com> <43F529DC.7080301@omnytex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe00045ad20d9e-cm0011e6f60f1e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) In-Reply-To: <43F529DC.7080301@omnytex.com> Sender: news X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N The Java security manager infrastructure. That's what it's there for :-) L. Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > What is so objectionable about it? If you think securing a method is a > good idea (I'm not sure I do, but let's assume for the sake of > argument), why is this answer "square"? :) I don't doubt there is a > better answer, but what is it? > > Frank > > Laurie Harper wrote: >> Frank W. Zammetti wrote: >>> I saw a very similar question asked a few months back in a general Java >>> forum, and I suggested an answer that I've never had the chance to >>> actually try out... the theory is interesting though... >>> >>> In the method you want to "protect", immediately throw an exception and >>> catch it. Then, parse the stack trace and see who the caller was. If >>> it's not a class you want to have access to the method, throw an >>> IllegalAccessException. >>> >>> Again, it's one of those things that sounds good in your head, I have no >>> idea if it translates to anything workable :) >> >> Ewwww! If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least don't make it >> square ;-) >> >> L. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org