[PATCH] SecurityManager compatibility patch

[Jukka Santala]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Jukka Santala wrote:
> Kaffe's NullSecurityManager permits everything anyway, this makes no

There's also the question of what to actually do with NullSecurityManager;
as its cnstructor isn't public, you can't instantiate it directly to use
with setSecurityManager. So the choices would seem to remain to either
make the constructor public, or remove the class entirely as it's not a
standard class anyway. I left it there as is, since most uses of
SecurityManager involve first creating a NullSecurityManager to subclass,
but it would seem that in interest of compatibility, unless somebody can
show otherwise, it would be best to remove it from the class-hierarchy and
create defaultSecurityManager as an direct instance of SecurityManager
instead.

 -Donwulff