Some offhand questions

[Sanne Grinovero]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:25 AM Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 07:36 +0100, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Probably time to have another go as dropping signed JAR support from
> > the class path and module path as it's too troublesome and don't do
> > what people think.
>
> +1
>

+1 as well, from a point of view of Quarkus we also observed much overhead
with signed JARs, a cost that comes with unclear benefits.

I hoped to skip such processing in our custom classloaders for efficiency
reasons, but doing this solely at our layer w/o endorsement of the JDK is
problematic; part of this is implementation related, a little tricky to do,
but primarily I backed off as I didn't feel comfortable in taking away this
capability from our users w/o being able to point to an authority like Alan
stating here clearly that it's "not that useful".

I'd be happy to see it fully dropped, but if that can't be done quickly,
I'd also be happy to use an opt-in flag to get this moving and foster rapid
feedback. We would have frameworks like Quarkus set such a flag by default,
advertise this change in our communities and let you know of any complaints.

Thanks,
Sanne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/leyden-dev/attachments/20240827/3817b0a9/attachment.htm>