Re: [cp-patches] java.security.Permissions.implies()

[Andrew Haley]

Mark Wielaard writes:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 16:39 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Permissions.imples() is rather broken ATM.  
 > > 
 > > Simply checking if the collection includes a particular permission
 > > doesn't do the job -- the permission might be a wildcard like
 > > "/secured/*".  We need to check every permission in the collection.
 > 
 > Oops. Did you write a test case for this?

No, it was somewhere deep in JOnAS.

 > > The question of synchronization is interesting.  I don't think people
 > > usually hold the lock on a Permissions instance when they invoke
 > > implies().
 > 
 > Permissions can (and I assume they normally are) marked readOnly.
 > That is another bug in this class: add() should check isReadOnly() (see
 > PermissionCollection which PermissionsHash extends). So you should
 > probably check if it is read only and if not synchronize the body of the
 > method.
 > 
 > > 2005-02-01  Andrew Haley  <address@hidden>
 > > 
 > >    * java/security/Permissions.java: Iterate over the collection
 > >    and invoke implies() on each element.
 > 
 > BTW. Please write this as:
 > 
 >      * java/security/Permissions.java (PermissionsHash.implies):
 >      Iterate over the collection and invoke implies() on each
 >      element.
 > 
 > That immediately makes clear that you are talking about the inner class
 > here.

Agh.  emacs still doesn't properly parse java source.

OK.

Andrew.