Re: Newbie questions about persistence (Attn MarkM: Possible surprise-vulnerability in persistence protocol)

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 12:20 -0400, Kevin Reid wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:11, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 11:42 -0400, Mark Miller wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> IMO, ScopeSetup should directly get the sealer from the
> >>> PersistentKeyHolder, rather than having E-level code do it. There  
> >>> may
> >>> be a reason to have more configurability than that though.
> >>>
> >>> MarkM, is there any reason the persistence sealer should not be  
> >>> widely
> >>> available?
> >>
> >> An oversight. This is a good plan. Thomas, feel free to submit a
> >> patch. Kevin, feel free to make a commitment along the lines you
> >> explain above.
> >
> > OK, here's an attempt at a patch.
> 
> Your PersistentSealer.java has a copyright statement contains specific  
> language which is not the MIT license. I would prefer that this be  
> removed and there only be two-line header as in other E files, to  
> avoid any future problems.

So would I, but it's company policy, and changing it may take months or
years. Is there anything actually incompatible about the terms? Mainly
it just states the obvious: that copyright law applies by default, with
extra rights permitted by the license, and that we provide no warranty.

[...]

I'd be perfectly happy if you want to make a different patch along the
lines you suggest, with your own header. I added the extra "self"
parameter to make it easy to switch to the new persistence protocol
later (i.e. slowly move things over to using the new API, then change
the protocol). I don't much mind either way, though.


-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard
IT Innovation Centre
2 Venture Road
Southampton
Hampshire SO16 7NP

Tel: +44 0 23 8076 0834
Fax: +44 0 23 8076 0833
mailto:tal-v5nx5w6akNyLE8xUarVfuPLx9OUvmyODWmv/[email protected]
http://www.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk