As the property has a default value, so there is a problem to use two
properties for the same purpose. We don't really know if an application
uses the misspelled name, or intended to use the default value.
For the current applications, if the implementation name get used,
okay, they get the expected behavior if we change to use the impl name,
and no worries. However, if we change to use the doc name, the behavior
get changed, and problems come out.
For the current applications, if the doc named get used. Applications
may expect it to work, but actually not. If we change to use the impl
name, the application still does not work, no additional risks. If we
change to use the doc name, the configuration works but the application
behavior also get changed (although it is the expected behavior).
I think the risk is pretty low if change to use the impl name.
Xuelei
On 11/7/2019 8:46 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
I guess another option is to not change the name that is used in the
docs, but change the code to look for both properties, trying the docs
name first, and then the misspelled name.
Not great, but probably the safest and least disruptive option.
--Sean
On 11/5/19 8:07 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
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
