The customer have found an interesting behaviour, that they can
reproduce on both Windows and Solaris with Java 5.0. While at
first this looks like an OS-level name service issue, deeper
investigation suggests this is indeed a Java problem - either
a docs or a functionality bug.

They describe:

-------- Forwarded Message --------

I'm executing the following program:

public class SecMgr {

    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
        while(true){
        InetAddress i = InetAddress.getByName(args[0]);
        System.out.println(i.toString());
            Thread.currentThread().sleep(2000);
        }
    }
}

A) with networkaddress.cache.ttl (java.security) set to -1
B) with networkaddress.cache.ttl (java.security) set to 0
C) with networkaddress.cache.ttl (java.security) set to 0 and
java.security.manager property set (thus installing the default java
security manager)

According to the documentation in the java.security file, case A and
case C should warrant the same behaviour X, where as B should exhibit
behaviour Y.

Behaviour X:
Changing the underlying OS configuration to return different ip
addresses for certain host names, should not be reflected in the JVM
since the entries in the "Java-level namelookup cache" are cached
forever (they are never refreshed).

Behaviour Y:
Changing the underlying OS configuration to return different ip
addresses for certain host names, should be reflected in the JVM since
the entries in the "Java-level namelookup cache" are not cached at all
and are retrieved from the OS each time.

To simulate this behaviour (under Solaris and Windows) the entries of
the /etc/hosts or c:/OS/system32/drivers/etc/hosts files respectively
are adapted while the test program is executed. (Solaris' nssswitch.conf
is configured "hosts: file dns").

Contradicting the documentation in the java.security file, even when a
security manager is installed, case C exhibits behaviour Y.

Isn't this a plain documentation bug in the java.security file or is the
DNS Cache (referred to as Java-level namelookup cache) not behaving as
expected, when installing a security manager?