RFR: 8372004: Have SSLLogger implement System.Logger

[Daniel Fuchs]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 15:50:42 GMT, Sean Coffey <coffeys at openjdk.org> wrote:

> `SSLLogger` utilizes `System.Logger` if the `javax.net.debug` system property key value is empty. However, since that class doesn't implement `SSLogger`, it misses the advantage of highlighting the exact calling site for each log statement.  Having `SSLLogger `simply implement `System.Logger` fixes this
> 
> I've also taken this opportunity to refractor the `isOn` boolean in `SSLLogger`. Encapsulated that boolean in a new method which callers can now use. I also used `ForceInline` directory on that method. Thanks to @dfuch for suggestions on that front.
> 
> Also updated an existing unit testcase to test for the new functionality

Good to see `isOn` is now encapsulated. The mechanical changes `isOn` -> `isOn()` all look OK - I haven't spotted anything there.  A few comments to SSLLogger. I don't understand the changes to the DebugPropertyValuesTest.

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SSLLogger.java line 146:

> 144: 
> 145:     public static void severe(String msg, Object... params) {
> 146:         SSLLogger.doLog(Level.ERROR, msg, params);

`log0` might be a better name than `doLog`

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SSLLogger.java line 190:

> 188:     }
> 189: 
> 190:     private static void help() {

Keeping the help method at ~ the same place in the file would make it easier to review. Was there any change in this method?

test/jdk/sun/security/ssl/SSLLogger/DebugPropertyValuesTest.java line 94:

> 92:                             + System.lineSeparator() +
> 93:                             "  \"certificate\" : \\{",
> 94:                         "sun.security.ssl.SSLSocketImpl close",

was that change intended? I don't see what it has to do with the rest.

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28376#pullrequestreview-3478576147
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28376#discussion_r2538789696
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28376#discussion_r2538795357
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28376#discussion_r2538818340