If there are two properties used for the same function, we need to
respect one and discard another one. Which one should be respected? As
could be confused.
For example, property "pro-A" is set to "value-A", and property "pro-B"
is set to "value-B", which value should be used? If "pro-A" is not set,
while "pro-B" is set to "value-B", should "value-B" be used? We may be
able to workaround and documentation be behaviors clearly. But it might
be not necessary if there is a acceptable one-property-name solution.
Xuelei
On 11/7/2019 1:32 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
On 11/7/19 12:34 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
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.
But you know if an application has set the property (the misspelled one
or the correct one), so I don't see the issue, but maybe I am missing
something. Can you be more specific, or give an example where it would
be an issue?
--Sean
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
