United StatesChange Country, Oracle Worldwide Web Sites Communities I am a... I want to...
Bug ID: 4615001 (spec) RMISecurityManager behavior should be clarified
4615001 : (spec) RMISecurityManager behavior should be clarified

Details
Type:
Enhancement
Submit Date:
2001-12-18
Status:
Resolved
Updated Date:
2003-08-13
Project Name:
JDK
Resolved Date:
2003-08-13
Component:
core-libs
OS:
linux
Sub-Component:
java.rmi
CPU:
x86
Priority:
P4
Resolution:
Fixed
Affected Versions:
1.4.0
Fixed Versions:
5.0

Related Reports

Sub Tasks

Description

Name: gm110360			Date: 12/17/2001


FULL PRODUCT VERSION :
J2SDK 1.4.0beta4 documentation

FULL OPERATING SYSTEM VERSION : irrelevant




A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
The documentation for java.rmi.RMISecurityManager
doesn't say anything about what policy it implements.

It says nothing about how RMISecurityManager differs
from superclass SecurityManager (or that it doesn't
differ).



STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
See class description in documentation file
.../api/java/rmi/RMISecurityManager.html

EXPECTED VERSUS ACTUAL BEHAVIOR :
The documentation should say what's special about
RMISecurityManager (relative to SecurityManager).

This bug can be reproduced always.
(Review ID: 137406) 
======================================================================

Comments
CONVERTED DATA

BugTraq+ Release Management Values

COMMIT TO FIX:
tiger

FIXED IN:
tiger

INTEGRATED IN:
tiger
tiger-b15
2004-06-14 
EVALUATION

Yes, the javadoc for RMISecurityManager could use an update, including pointing out that since 1.2, RMISecurityManager does not override or extend the behavior of its superclass, java.lang.SecurityManager, in any way, so that users might as well use java.lang.SecurityManager now.
###@###.### 2002-02-11

We should also consider deprecating RMISecurityManager for Tiger since
it offers no benefit over using the default SecurityManager implementation.
###@###.### 2002-07-16

Deprecating RMISecurityManager is probably not appropriate because many
RMI examples set an RMISecurityManager instance.  Instead, the specification
should be clarified to specify the behavior that RMISecurityManager implements
(which is no different than java.lang.SecurityManager) and suggest using
java.lang.SecurityManager or an application-specific SecurityManager 
implementation instead.
2004-06-11


Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together