[8] Request for review: 8016848: javax_security/auth/login tests fail in compact 1 and 2 profiles

[Sean Mullan]

On 08/06/2013 01:57 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> The fix looks fine.
>
> BTW, I think the relationship between
> javax.security.auth.login.Configuration and
> javax.security.auth.login.ConfigurationSpi is not that instinctive in
> the implementation.  For example, the impl of
> Configuration.getAppConfigurationEntry() should be able to use the impl
> of ConfigurationSpi.engineGetAppConfigurationEntry(). And the provider
> should only need to extend ConfigurationSpi rather than the
> Configuration class.  It would be nice to re-factoring the code if no
> other concerns.

I'm not sure I understand the refactoring that you are suggesting, could 
you give an example? Also, ConfigurationSpi was added in JDK 1.6 after 
Configuration had already been added since 1.4. So we still need to 
preserve compatibility with implementations that extend from Configuration.

--Sean

>
> Xuelei
>
> On 8/2/2013 12:48 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Could you please review my fix for 8016848:
>>
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8016848/webrev.00/
>>
>> bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8016848
>>
>> This is a bug because
>> javax.security.auth.login.Configuration.getConfiguration() throws a
>> ClassCastException when run with the compact1 or compact2 profiles.
>>
>> This is because the default Configuration object that is returned is not
>> in the compact1 profile. The default Configuration is specified by the
>> "login.configuration.provider" security property (in the Java security
>> properties file). This property is currently set to
>> com.sun.security.auth.login.ConfigFile which is not in the compact1 or
>> compact2 profiles
>>
>> The fix is to change the default value of the
>> "login.configuration.provider" security property to
>> sun.security.provider.ConfigFile, which will be a new class that is
>> essentially a copy of com.sun.security.auth.login.ConfigFile. However,
>> because it is in the sun.security.provider package, it will be in all
>> profiles. We will not remove the com.sun.security.auth.login.ConfigFile
>> class as there may be some applications directly using it.
>>
>> noreg-jck as there is an existing JCK test for this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sean
>