I understand your points. Between using the doc name and the code name, I think using the code name is a little bit safer if someone really use the impl name. However, just a little bit. I’m open to use the doc name if we could get an agreement.
Xuelei > On Nov 5, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Anthony Scarpino <anthony.scarp...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > I understand the desire to change this, but are we sure the doc should be > changed instead of the property? I would tend to believe users code to the > doc and don’t notice it wasn’t working. Not reading the source code and > code to that implemented name. Otherwise I’d assume someone would have filed > a bug already in the 2yrs. > > I don’t want us to support two properties, I’m just not confident which way > is right. > > Tony > >> On Nov 5, 2019, at 4:00 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> May I have the CSR reviewed? >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233652 >> >> The system property, "jsse.enableMFLNExtension", was introduced in JDK 9 >> (See JSSE Reference Guides). However, the implementation code uses >> "jsse.enableMFLExtension" (without 'N') instead. >> >> As the system property may have been used in practice, it may be better to >> change the CSR and doc accordingly. >> >> Thanks, >> Xuelei >
