Re: java.security.Security proposal

[Brian Jones]

"Anthony Green" <address@hidden> writes:

> Brian wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> It's possible to have an installation with native shared library
> providers and no .jar implementation.  You really don't want to have
> a global classpath.security file in this case because gcj is the
> only implementation that will find and use those providers.

I'm not very familiar with Java's security framework here so I'll take
your word for it.

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>