Does this sound like a workable plan?
Is the suggested file ok? It will mean that we'll only support one set of options per user.
Should we parse and validate the params either in ZAP and/or in the script?
Alternatively we could just have a single text field for the options, and if present write the contents to the properties file, and always add these to the java call no matter what. That would be much more flexible, make the implementation easier but could introduce the possibility of someone using this as a way to attack ZAP, eg by calling a different class.
Note that the Windows exe is created using Launch4j. It looks like this already supports overriding the JVM options via a config file: http://launch4j.sourceforge.net/docs.html#Additional_jvm_options
Feedback appreciated...
Simon
Cheers,
Simon
What are your (addressed to everyone;) preferences?
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "OWASP ZAP Developer Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zaproxy-develop/9iMqEgzG1nE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to zaproxy-devel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to zaproxy-develop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to zaproxy-devel...@googlegroups.com.