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

[Xuelei Fan]

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.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
>>>>>
>>>>