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

[Jiri Vanek]

On 03/05/2014 03:16 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> 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!
>>

So here is version with field.

the whitelist then will be:
netx.net.sourceforge.jnlp.runtime.JNLPRuntime history


J
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: saveRatherToPRivateField.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2505 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20140305/44fc961d/saveRatherToPRivateField.patch