Subject: Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)
> On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Xuelei Fan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm trying to understand this update. Does "/-" imply "/foo"?
> Does the following spec can be used to explain the new added note?
> * <li>if the wildcard flag is "-", the simple pathname's path
> * must be recursively inside the wildcard pathname's path.
But the precise meaning of "recursively inside" is different between the
pre-jdk9 and jdk9 behaviors. The @implNote explains more.
> On 12/19/2016 11:25 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
>> Ping again.
>>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Wang Weijun <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> An clarification is added to FilePermission::implies:
>>> * @implNote
>>> * a simple [email protected] npath} is recursively inside a wildcard [email protected] npath}
>>> * if and only if [email protected] simple_npath.relativize(wildcard_npath)}
>>> - * is a series of one or more "..". An invalid [email protected] FilePermission}
>>> + * is a series of one or more "..". Note that this means "/-" does not
>>> + * imply "foo". An invalid [email protected] FilePermission} does
>>> * not imply any object except for itself.
>>> The newly added sentence is
>>> Note that this means "/-" does not imply "foo".
>>> ... JCK has agreed to update their test.
>>> Since this is just a clarification inside an @implNote and no spec is
>>> updated, I suppose no CCC is needed. Please confirm.