Re: java.security.Security proposal

[Anthony Green]

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.

AG