On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 2018/2/16 10:59:57 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
> >> Of course it's possible. The specification need merely say that
> >> `java.vendor.version` is a standard system property that may, or may
> >> not, have a value. (Or, if you like, whose value may be `null`.)
> >
> > Sorry but I still don't get it. Do you agree that you can't assign NULL
> to
> > a system property because you'll get a NPE?
>
> I agree that `System.setProperty("java.vendor.version", null)` will
> throw an NPE, but I don't see how this fact is relevant.
>
> > You could of course not assign it at all (as it is done now) in which
> case
> > System.getProperty("java.vendor.version") would return NULL. But that
> means
> > "it is not defined" which is different from "is has no value".
>
> Let's not get caught up in fine philosophical distinctions between "not
> defined", "has no value", and `null`. Either `System::getProperty`
> returns a non-`null` value, or it doesn't. That's all that matters.
>
> > You can
> > still call System.getProperties().containsKey("java.vendor.version")
> and
> > it would return false which violates that specification because it
> mandates
> > that a property with the "java.vendor.version" exists.
>
> The current specification mandates this. That's precisely the bug here.
> We can revise it so that it doesn't.
>
>
Re-targeted to 11 with priority P2 and reassigned to you.
Thanks,
Volker
> - Mark
>
