JDK-4615001 : (spec) RMISecurityManager behavior should be clarified
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Component: core-libs
  • Sub-Component: java.rmi
  • Priority: P4
  • Affected Version: 1.4.0
  • OS: linux
  • CPU: x86
  • Submit Date: 2001-12-18
  • Updated Date: 2017-05-16
  • Resolved Date: 2003-08-13
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availabitlity Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
5.0 tigerResolved
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