[9] RFR 8157881: security.provider property description needs to be updated for modules

[Valerie Peng]

Sounds good.
Webrev updated at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8157881/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Valerie

On 6/10/2016 10:21 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 04:38 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Sean,
>>
>> Can you please help reviewing this? I suppose we don't need to file CCC
>> for this, right?
>
> Right, since it was covered in a previous CCC.
>
>> There is already an earlier one under 7191662 and this
>> is just updating comments in java.security file.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157881
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8157881/webrev.00/
>
>
> 36 # specify either the provider name or the name of provider class
> 37 # and priority in the format
>
> since you describe the difference between provName and className 
> below, I suggest simplifying this sentence as:
>
> "specify the provider and priority in the format"
>
> 57 # There must be at least one provider specification in java.security.
> 58 # There is a default provider that comes standard with the JDK. It
> 59 # is called the "SUN" provider. Thus, the "SUN" provider is registered
> 60 # via the following:
> 61 #
> 62 #    security.provider.1=SUN
> 63 #
>
> This whole paragraph is a bit out-of-date. There is more than one 
> provider included in the JDK. And the SUN provider is not always the 
> #1 provider (ex: on Solaris). That first sentence is a little odd too, 
> do we really check if there is at least one provider?
>
> My thought is to remove this whole paragraph - it doesn't seem useful 
> and is out-of-date.
>
> --Sean