-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Removing SecurityManager in prep of JEP411 #7562
Conversation
+ Introduce new top levels /build/ /jetty-core/ /jetty-integrations/ /jetty-ee9/ + Ensure `mvn validate` is happy Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
+ Change artifactIds in /jetty-ee9/ to include jetty-ee9 prefix + Ensure 'mvn validate' is sane Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
+ Moving /demos/ to /jetty-ee9/jetty-ee9-demos/ + Moving more /tests/ projects to /jetty-ee9/ + Isolating ee9 dependencies properties to /jetty-ee9/ + Establishing jetty-ee9-bom + Removing IO classes that were deleted in jetty-12.0.x Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
…re-server instead)
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim.erdfelt@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are SecurityManager
direct usages that it's ok to remove; fine with that.
There are doPrivileged()
calls that I think were only used to "hide" operations that required permissions (e.g. load the logging properties) and that is ok to remove; fine with that.
There are doPrivileged()
calls that were done to "cut" the AccessControlContext
that was captured, which otherwise was retaining ClassLoader
instances; I don't think it's ok to remove those, but I may be wrong.
If it's not ok, then perhaps try reflection?
@sbordet @joakime see my comment over here #6184 (comment). The |
@janbartel I agree, |
@janbartel looking at this in more details, I am dubious about the fix for the See how |
@sbordet Our solution executes in a privileged block, which means that the |
@janbartel the |
fdbae02
to
0a32147
Compare
Way out of date. |
Removing the usages of deprecated (and slated for removal) methods and classes defined in JEP-411.