RFR 7191662: JCE providers should be located via ServiceLoader

[Valerie Peng]

I don't know image builder well enough to answer your question.
Based on my own experiment, it seems to pick up the one from java.naming 
when duplication occurs, so that's why I saved the merged result to 
there and named the Gensrc makefile with java.naming. The result build 
work fine.

Does this explain what I am trying to do here? If you have better ways 
to get this done, I am certainly open to that idea.
Thanks,
Valerie

On 6/5/2015 12:21 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Hello Valerie,
>
> The merging seems ok, but I thought there was non determinism in the 
> image builder regarding which provider would get picked up. Is that 
> resolved or do you really need to override all of those providers with 
> your generated file in gensrc? I can assist in writing that makefile 
> logic if needed.
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2015-06-04 23:58, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Build experts,
>>
>> Can you please review the make file related change, i.e. the new file 
>> make/gensrc/Gensrc-java.naming.gmk, in the following webrev: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7191662/webrev.03
>>
>> This is for merging the java.security.Provider file from various 
>> providers and use the (merged) result for the final image build.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 6/3/2015 10:27 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>>>
>>> Correct, if the makefile related changes are removed then no need 
>>> for build team to review 7191662 webrev anymore.
>>> There are other discussions ongoing and we should be able to reach a 
>>> decision in a day or two.
>>> Will update the list again.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Valerie
>>>
>>> On 06/01/15 16:39, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>> On 2015-05-29 00:10, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find comments in line...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/27/2015 3:42 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>>>> Valerie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you see my comment yesterday?
>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-May/012254.html 
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we exchanged emails after this above one. I will follow up 
>>>>> your latest one later today.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you have reverted the java.security to keep the classname, 
>>>>>> to avoid causing merge conflict to jimage refresh, let’s remove 
>>>>>> the META-INF files in the first push and the build change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The security providers will be loaded via the fallback mechanism 
>>>>>> (i.e. ProviderLoader.legacyLoad method).  You should keep the 
>>>>>> ProviderLoader.load method to take the provider name instead of 
>>>>>> classname.
>>>>> Sure, I can remove the META-INF files so the providers are loaded 
>>>>> through the legacyLoad().
>>>>> Hmm, the ProviderLoader.load() method is used by java.security 
>>>>> file provider loading. Since the current list still uses class 
>>>>> name, it should take class name when checking for matches while 
>>>>> iterating through the list returned by ServiceLoader.
>>>>> This way, when changes are sync'ed into Jake, no extra change 
>>>>> required and the providers will be loaded through 
>>>>> ProviderLoader.load() automatically with the current list.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ll file a bug to follow up to change java.security to list the 
>>>>>> provider name.  This will wait after the jimage refresh goes into 
>>>>>> jdk9/dev
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Valerie
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I followed completely here were this landed. Does this 
>>>> mean that there's currently no need for a build system code review 
>>>> on http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7191662/webrev.01/, and 
>>>> that a new webrev will be posted instead?
>>>>
>>>> /Magnus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mandy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 27, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Valerie 
>>>>>>> Peng<valerie.peng at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, build experts,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please review the make file related change, i.e. the new 
>>>>>>> file make/gensrc/Gensrc-java.naming.gmk, in the following webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7191662/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is for merging the java.security.Provider file from various 
>>>>>>> providers and use the (merged) result for the final image build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest of source code changes are reviewed by my team already.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Valerie
>>>>>>> (Java Security Team)
>>>>
>>>
>