RFR 8130302: jarsigner and keytool -providerClass needs be re-examined for modules

[Mandy Chung]

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Wang Weijun <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Can I say -providerClass <NAME> -providerArg <ARG> is equivalent to extending java.security to add “security.provider.N=NAME ARG”?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 
>> I suggest to keep -providerClass and -providerArg only for legacy security provider (i.e. not a service provider to java.security.Provider).
>> 
>> For security providers that are converted to service provider:
>> 
>> What about updating -provider <NAME>[:<ARG>] option such that (1) it accepts “provider name” only (not class name) and (2) an optional argument?  Although it’s an incompatible change, for legacy security provider, they can still use -providerClass option.
> 
> Why must only "provider name”?

Consistent with security.provider.<N> specified in java.security.

For security providers in a named module, they must be a service provider.  Security providers can also be a service provider that will help migration.

security.provider.<N> must specify the name of the security provider which is used to compare with the providers loaded by ServiceLoader.  A security provider can choose to use its fully-qualified classname be the provider name if you like.  Provider::getName is used to match the specified name (see  sun.security.jca.ProviderConfig.ProviderLoader)

If the provider is not found via service loader, i.e. security.provider.<N>=<fully-qualified classname> for legacy security providers in unnamed module, it will call Class.forName and newInstance to construct the security provider instance.  All packages in unnamed modules are exported and so Class::newInstance call will succeed (java.base can read unnamed module in the implementation).

> 
> We can document this way (-providerClass for legacy and -provider for new) and still treat -providerClass and -provider the same (which is what we are doing now) internally. I cannot see any harm and it is compatible.
> 
> Even java.security supports both name and class now, right?
> 

See above.

Mandy

> Thanks
> Max
> 
>> 
>> Mandy
>