[RFC][PATCH][icedtea-web]: Added support for signed JNLP file- Updated Patch

[Omair Majid]

On 07/25/2011 09:51 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 10:03 Thu 21 Jul     , Omair Majid wrote:
>> On 07/21/2011 09:31 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> On 09:21 Thu 21 Jul     , Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can xml not return the number of element names beforehand?
>>>> Bad luck. No:(
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not familiar with this XML API.  Where is it from?  Doesn't look like JAXP.
>>>> This is tiny html parser coded directly inside icedtea-web.... not sure if it is right choice ... but is is here very long tim and a several things depnde on him. It was chosen because he is much m,ore tolerant then xml parsers.
>>>> Weather it is benefit is question,, but it was decided long ago and is working fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> IcedTea-Web (or Netx, if you will, since this part of code has not been
>> significantly modified) uses a (quite old) embedded copy of the NanoXML
>> parser [1]. It had a number of problems (it could not even deal with
>> comments when we first added netx to icedtea), but I think we have
>> reached a point where it works fine for most users.
>>
>>> There was a plan to replace that.  Omair?
>>>
>>
>> There still is.
>>
>> First, let me clarify something about jnlp files. They may look like
>> (and they are defined to be, as far as I know) XML files. But thanks to
>> the fact that there is just one reference implementation and it does not
>> rely on a validating XML parser (as far as I can tell), the JNLP files
>> are often not valid XML files. This causes a huge risk of regressions if
>> we replace a 'XML' parser with another one.
>>
>> That said, I did spend some time looking into replacing NanoXML with a
>> JAXP-based SAX parser (actually, most of the code was in Netx but was
>> just commented out). The unit tests pointed out a few regression, so I
>> did not commit it. As much as I would love to remove the embedded
>> NanoXML code, I am concerned about breaking applications.
>>
>> Going forward, the plan is to switch to a parser designed for parsing
>> malformed xml files. I have tested tagsoup and it looks somewhat
>> promising [2]. But I am not very eager to do that in a minor release as
>> the risk of regressions is still significant. It is currently scheduled
>> for the 2.0 release [3], where I expect a few other major changes too.
>>
>
> I remember us discussing all this at the end of last year.  Are we not working
> on 2.0 yet?  Not sure what the current state of things is.
>

I believe the next release is 1.2 [1]. 2.0 is after that. Or in other 
words, once I see other major/significant changes start going in, I will 
try to push this too.

Cheers,
Omair

[1] http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea-Web#Release_Plans