CSR review request JDK-8233621, Mismatch in jsse.enableMFLNExtension property name
Xuelei Fan
Xuelei.Fan at Oracle.Com
Wed Nov 6 01:07:16 UTC 2019
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.scarpino at 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.fan at 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
>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list