Is there any reason not to have 8223269 in JDK baseline?

[Martin Balao]

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
>>
>>