[RFD] Stray permission comment in sun.net.www.protocol.jar.JarURLConnection

[Jaikiran Pai]

Hello Eirik,

Looking at the commit history, that comment was added when, very long 
back, the JarFileFactory used to return a java.security.Permission for 
the cached JarFile. That code was then changed but the comment was left 
around which I believe was an oversight.

Like you note, in its current form it is not accurate. It can be 
removed. If we do introduce a new comment for that block (which I think 
we should), then something like the following might be useful:

/*
  * If we are using a cached jarFile, which could have been added to the 
cache
  * by someone else, then set our jarFileURLConnection to the one from 
the cache
  * and update it to use the same value for useCaches as the one we had 
determined
  * in our constructor.
  */

-Jaikiran

On 20/11/24 10:38 pm, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the end of s.n.w.p.j.JarURLConnection::connect, I see this stray, 
> permission related comment:
>
>     /* we also ask the factory the permission that was required
>      * to get the jarFile, and set it as our permission.
>      */
>     if (useCaches) {
>         boolean oldUseCaches = jarFileURLConnection.getUseCaches();
>         jarFileURLConnection = factory.getConnection(jarFile);
>         jarFileURLConnection.setUseCaches(oldUseCaches);
>     }
>
>
> The "factory" here is JarFileFactory, which recently went through a 
> SM-cleanup PR which removed permission checking.
>
> The comment seems to have existed since the initial load, but have 
> moved around a bit since then.
>
> It does not seem to make a lot of sense now, and digging through 
> history I'm also struggling a bit to understand how it made sense even 
> in the initial load.
>
> What's the best action here? Delete the comment? Replace it with 
> something more appropriate? Wait for pending JEP486 cleanup to take 
> care of it?
>
> Thanks,
> Eirik.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/net-dev/attachments/20241121/09e46927/attachment-0001.htm>