Re: [patch] make security tests silent

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

Generally speaking, it isn't good style to be printing debug messages 
unless debugging is enabled. In this case, the user will get an 
exception if they try to use an algorithm that isn't implemented by the 
GNU provider, so the additional warning does seem (mostly) redundant.

It would be nice for us to have a more fine-grained way to select debug 
messages rather than just Configuration.DEBUG,  to allow the user select 
what types of debug messages get printed at runtime, but we don't have 
that, yet.

I think this patch is fine.

Bryce

Andreas Tobler wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> would this be accepted to make the security tests silent?
> Or do you have other DEBUG preferences? 
>
> Andreas
>
> P.S, with CL if ok. And reposted.
>
> Index: java/security/Security.java
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/libjava/java/security/Security.java,v
> retrieving revision 1.23
> diff -u -r1.23 Security.java
> --- java/security/Security.java 21 Oct 2004 20:21:04 -0000      1.23
> +++ java/security/Security.java 15 Nov 2004 08:08:44 -0000
> @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@
>
> import gnu.java.security.action.GetPropertyAction;
>
> +import gnu.classpath.Configuration;
> +
> import java.io.IOException;
> import java.io.InputStream;
> import java.net.URL;
> @@ -81,20 +83,27 @@
>       if (!loadProviders (base, "classpath")
>          && !loaded
>          && providers.size() == 0)
> -        {
> -         // No providers found and both security files failed to load properly.
> -         System.err.println
> -           ("WARNING: could not properly read security provider files:");
> -         System.err.println
> -           ("         " + base + "/security/" + vendor + ".security");
> -         System.err.println
> -           ("         " + base + "/security/" + "classpath" + ".security");
> -         System.err.println
> -           ("         Falling back to standard GNU security provider");
> -         providers.addElement (new gnu.java.security.provider.Gnu());
> -        }
> -  }
> -
> +         {
> +             if (Configuration.DEBUG)
> +                 {
> +                     /* No providers found and both security files failed
> to
> +                      * load properly. Give a warning in case of DEBUG
> is
> +                      * enabled.
> +                      */
> +                     System.err.println
> +                         ("WARNING: could not properly read security provider
> files:");
> +                     System.err.println
> +                         ("         " + base + "/security/" + vendor
> +                          + ".security");
> +                     System.err.println
> +                         ("         " + base + "/security/" + "classpath"
> +                          + ".security");
> +                     System.err.println
> +                         ("         Falling back to standard GNU security
> provider");
> +                 }
> +             providers.addElement (new gnu.java.security.provider.Gnu());
> +         }
> +    }
>   // This class can't be instantiated.
>   private Security()
>   {
>
>