Re: java.security.Security proposal

[Brian Jones]

Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:

> Anthony Green submitted a gcj patch that fixes a Security bug.  It
> also changes Security.loadProviders to look for `gcj.security' and not
> `classpath.security':
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2001-q3/msg00460.html
> 
> One problem with this is that it introduces a divergence between
> Classpath and libgcj.  I prefer to avoid those.

I apologize for not having read that link yet, but how does changing
the name to gcj.security have to do with fixing a bug?  Is this really
gcj specific?

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>