CSR review request JDK-8233621, Mismatch in jsse.enableMFLNExtension property name

[Xuelei Fan]

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.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
>>>
>>