Re: Security provider fallback

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> writes:

Tom> My first inclination is not to do this.  The class library is a
Tom> library; printing to stderr like this is a bit unfriendly.  It seems
Tom> to violate the bounds of what a library ought to do.

Mark> Our garbage collector does it in extreme situations. But I can leave out
Mark> the warning messages. The important bit is the fallback to a default
Mark> security manager if everything goes wrong (see below). Would the patch
Mark> be OK without the warnings?

Yes, definitely.

Mark> Note that the fallback (and warning) only works if there no
Mark> valid security providers defined and there are errors with all
Mark> security provider resources. So if there actually is a security
Mark> provider file/resource, but it is left empty by the user then
Mark> they still get what they want (no provider and no standard
Mark> algorithms).

Thanks.  In that case I think the warning would be ok.

Tom