RFR: 8078139 : jdk.xml.dom should be loaded by the ext class loader

[Mandy Chung]

On 04/21/2015 10:48 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 01:36 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Good point.  They are all interfaces that don't require any permission.
>
> Ah, ok. Never mind then.
>
>> I'm inclined to suggest the client, e.g. implementation classes,
>> requiring jdk.xml.dom should configure proper permissions for itself as
>> well as permissions required by jdk.xml.dom.
>
> Yes, but that would require editing the policy file on systems which 
> may not be under your control.
>

OK.  I think it's better to follow up this after further discussion for 
the deprivileging work and understand what can or can't be done in 
editing the policy files.  For now, we should keep existing behavior to 
grant jdk.xml.dom AllPermissions.  How does that sound?

Joe - the file is in jdk/src/java.base/share/conf/security/java.policy.


Mandy

> --Sean
>
>> Otherwise it would require
>> AllPermissions.
>
>>
>> Mandy
>>
>> On 04/21/2015 10:26 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>> Do we also need to change the java.policy file to grant specific
>>> permissions to the jdk.xml.dom module?
>>>
>>> --Sean
>>>
>>> On 04/21/2015 01:19 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
>>>> Thanks Mandy, Alan.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed the issues. Here's the updated webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8078139/webrev/
>>>>
>>>> -Joe
>>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2015 10:10 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>>> On 21/04/2015 17:54, huizhe wang wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By JDK-8042244, we moved several org.w3c.dom packages to a module
>>>>>> called jdk.xml.dom. This new module shall be loaded by the ext class
>>>>>> loader.  Please review the patch for the change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8078139/webrev/
>>>>> Looks okay. I assume @test is not needed in this test because it's a
>>>>> TestNG tree, is that right?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alan
>>>>
>>