[rfc][icedtea-web] u51 classpath manifest entry implementation

[Jacob Wisor]

On 02/07/2014 04:22 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 11:59 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> +CBCheckUnsignedFail= Codebase DO NOT matches codebase manifest attribute,
>>>> but application is
>>>> unsigned. Continuing
>>>
>>> The application's codebase does NOT match the codebase specified in its
>>> manifest, but the
>>> application is unsigned. Continuing
>>>
>>
>> followed
>
> This one didn't get changed. Otherwise, I think this is okay to push now.
>
> Do you have any plans for making this validation information more visible? I
> don't think most people are even going to notice the log messages.

I do not want to sound too grim here but probably most users will not understand 
what this messages is all about. Even many admins do not know what a jar or 
application manifest is. :-\ Perhaps you should consider rewording this message 
towards what the effects of non-matching codebases are than just stating a plain 
fact.

Sometimes I can not escape the impression that developers and JCP committees are 
throwing new features and quick dirty fixes at users just to extend the life 
span of products with broken concepts. They just patch technical details instead 
of really solving problems. But hey, who am I to complain. ;) All I am asking of 
you is to please think instead of to blindly follow a "reference implementation".

Jacob