<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Does this mean all the ugly AccessController.doPrivileged code
can be simplified?</p>
<p>--John<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/10/2024 16:22, Kevin Rushforth
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1599ac75-b6e5-44a1-b2af-add167599a5b@oracle.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I just took the PR out of Draft, so it is now ready for review.<br>
<br>
-- Kevin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/2/2024 8:20 AM, Kevin Rushforth
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:98351681-43bb-41c7-86e4-adb3cc23c33d@oracle.com">
<blockquote type="cite">I suspect people who are using
SecurityManager with JavaFX are still on java8.</blockquote>
<br>
Very likely.<br>
<br>
-- Kevin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/2/2024 7:58 AM, Andy
Goryachev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BL3PR10MB6185927F4D365DAB160BB234E5702@BL3PR10MB6185.namprd10.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16";
panose-1:2 0 5 9 3 0 0 0 0 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16";
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16"">Good
riddance! I suspect people who are using
SecurityManager with JavaFX are still on java8.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16"">-andy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Iosevka Fixed SS16""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">openjfx-dev
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:openjfx-dev-retn@openjdk.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><openjfx-dev-retn@openjdk.org></a>
on behalf of Kevin Rushforth <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:kevin.rushforth@oracle.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><kevin.rushforth@oracle.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 2, 2024 at
07:46<br>
<b>To: </b>openjfx-dev <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:openjfx-dev@openjdk.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><openjfx-dev@openjdk.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Proposal: Remove support for
running JavaFX with the security manager<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">The Java Security
Manager was deprecated for removal in JDK 17 by
JEP <br>
411 [1]. The next step in the evolution of
removing the security manager <br>
is to permanently disable it as proposed by
candidate JEP 486 [2]. Once <br>
this is done, System::getSecurityManager will
unconditionally return <br>
null, System::setSecurityManager will
unconditionally throw <br>
UnsupportedOperationException, and running "java
-Dsecurity.manager" <br>
will cause the VM to exit with a fatal error.
This will either happen in <br>
JDK 24 (likely) or 25 (in case it misses 24).
Either way, it will soon <br>
be gone.<br>
<br>
I propose to remove support for running JavaFX
applications with a <br>
security manager in JavaFX 24. Any JavaFX
application that uses a <br>
security manager will necessarily need to use
JDK 21.x LTS going <br>
forward, and thus can similarly use JavaFX 21.x
LTS. See JDK-8341090 [3].<br>
<br>
Comments?<br>
<br>
-- Kevin<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/411"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://openjdk.org/jeps/411</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/486"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://openjdk.org/jeps/486</a><br>
[3] <a
href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341090"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341090</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>