[rfc][icedtea-web] save runn urls to property

[Andrew Azores]

On 03/05/2014 09:19 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>> On 02/19/2014 09:56 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> hi!
>>>
>>> As java abrt connector is sending quite good reports, the url, on 
>>> which I can reproduce the issue is missing. So always my first 
>>> question in bug is "may you please post url" ?
>>>
>>> Also java connector is printing out system properties. So it crossed 
>>> my mind to store the launched jnlps/htmls for this usage. I have 
>>> quite mixed feelings about it but do not have it makes 
>>> java-abrt-connector a bit useless (users donot care to much about 
>>> auto generated bugs)
>>> - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060390
>>>
>>> This needs also some more work on java-abrt-conenctor - see 
>>> https://github.com/jfilak/abrt-java-connector/issues/34
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>> I like the intent behind the patch but I don't know if I really like 
>> using system properties for this :/
>
> I'm not sure with them too:(
>
> > not that I have any better ideas off the top of my head.
>
> The abrt agent can actually do anything. My another idea is to store 
> it in some static (private) variable. The whitleist in issue 34 will 
> then be package.class fieldName

I didn't know that this would be an option. This sounds much, much 
better to me.

>
> > But this just does not seem to me like what the properties are meant 
> to be used for.
>
> Agree. And my concern is that with this, *maybe* (but probably) all 
> appelts which can read properties, will be able to spy history.

Yea, and this is really not a good mechanism to be providing.

>
> I have commented also 
> https://github.com/jfilak/abrt-java-connector/issues/34
>> It seems like nobody else is chiming in with any better ideas, and 
>> you're right that the automatic bug reports are a little bit useless 
>> without something like this, so if you have no better implementations 
>> in mind then I suppose this will have to suffice.
>
> What do you thnk about this approach? (otherwise it will be same)
> Thank you!
>
> J.

Thanks,

-- 
Andrew A