<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
On 28/06/2021 18:16, Jaikiran Pai wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:35e2fae1-1bda-9bc5-45a2-43fc55c73bce@gmail.com">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-size: 12px; font-family:
monospace;" lang="x-unicode"> <br>
On a slightly related note, I was wondering why we decided to go
with what appears to be a bit more aggressive approach to these
warning messages as compared to what was done with the illegal
reflective access warnings? I would have thought that the
illegal reflective access changes would be much more involved if
not the same level as moving away from setSecurityManager calls.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The typical SM setup will be to set it once, the Ant "same JVM"
scenario where it sets and then resets it may be unusual.<br>
<br>
In any case, the original implementation patch did have caching to
avoid duplicates. It wasn't quite right and had to be pulled, it may
be time to re-visit that to avoid too much noise for code that sets
it many times.<br>
<br>
-Alan.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>