RFR: JDK-8075706 : Policy implementation does not allow policy.provider to be on the class path

[Sean Mullan]

I was trying to avoid too many changes, but in the end I decided it was 
better to refactor some of this code into a new method. So here is the 
new webrev:

     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8075706/webrev.02/

Changes include:

- bootstrapping code moved to new method named loadPolicyProvider
- added Alan's suggestion to fallback to SCL only if CNFE is thrown
- instantiated default policy provider directly instead of using 
reflection if property has not been changed or is not set
- addressed Mandy's comment about formatting
- enhanced test to cover more cases

Thanks,
Sean

On 05/04/2015 04:14 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 10:55 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 01/05/2015 13:48, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>> Please review this change to use the system class loader to locate a
>>> policy provider specified with the policy.provider security property.
>>> The current implementation tries to load the provider using the
>>> extension class loader. This will no longer work when the extension
>>> mechanism is removed, which is proposed as part of JEP 220:
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/220
>>>
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8075706/webrev.01/
>> The change looks okay but I wonder if there is an opportunity to do some
>> clean-up.
>
> Yes, definitely, but OTOH it's been mostly working fine for years, and
> it's a fragile area, so we need to proceed with care :)
>
>> One thing that is a bit icky is the catching of Exception for the case
>> that the policy class is loaded by boot loader but it can't be
>> instantiated for some reason. It might be  better to replace this with
>> Class.forName(policy_class, false, null) and only fallback to trying
>> again with the SCL if CNFE is thrown. That way you could have once place
>> to instantiate the policy class and log the exception if it fails.
>
> That seems like a good idea. I'll change it, and if I get a good JPRT
> run, I'll proceed with that change.
>
> --Sean