Is there any reason not to have 8223269 in JDK baseline?
Seán Coffey
sean.coffey at oracle.com
Mon Nov 4 09:18:40 UTC 2019
Was OOTO. No issues from me on this one!
regards,
Sean.
On 31/10/2019 15:01, Martin Balao wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> Even though newer JDKs should be using the PKCS12 keystore format, there
> are still customers using the old JKS format and they would benefit from
> this feature.
>
> Is there any objection if I propose this for JDK base line?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin.-
>
>
> On 10/30/19 8:14 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>> Newer JDK families should be using the PKCS12 keystore format. For that
>> reason, I kept it 8u only. It was a solution to address a particular use
>> case reported by an Oracle JDK user.
>>
>> regards,
>> Sean.
>>
>> On 30/10/2019 18:21, Martin Balao wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've noticed that 8223269 [1] (not public) has been included in Oracle's
>>> 8u231 JDK [2].
>>>
>>> Is there a reason not to have this in JDK baseline? (and, thus, create a
>>> backport for the open JDKs)
>>>
>>> In case there is not, I'll proceed with a new ticket (unless you want to
>>> make [1] public), a CSR and a patch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin.-
>>>
>>> --
>>> [1] - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223269
>>> [2] -
>>> https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/8u231-relnotes-5592812.html#JDK-8223269
>>>
>>>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list