RFR: 8044609: javax.net.debug options not working and documented as expected [v27]

[Bradford Wetmore]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:59:33 GMT, Sean Coffey <coffeys at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SSLLogger.java line 239:
>> 
>>> 237:                 " all non-widening filters are enabled.%n%n");
>>> 238:         System.err.printf("%nAdding valid filter options to \"ssl\" will log" +
>>> 239:                 " messages to include%njust those filtered categories.%n");
>> 
>> So the intended behavior is the following:  
>> 
>> If we have code like this:
>> 
>>> if (SSLLogger.isOn() && SSLLogger.isOn(SSLLogger.Opt.SSL)) {
>> 
>> then setting `javax.net.debug=ssl` or `ssl,trustmanager`, it will always output this logging statement.  
>> 
>> But if we have code like this:
>> 
>>> if (SSLLogger.isOn() && SSLLogger.isOn(SSLLogger.Opt.TRUSTMANAGER)) {
>> 
>> then `javax.net.debug=ssl` will output this (because only `ssl` was enabled), but `javax.net.debug=ssl,keymanager` will not.  That's because `keymanager` is a valid name, thus only the `SSL` and `KEYMANAGER` options will print).  
>> 
>> So we need to make sure that everything `SSL` and non-`SSL` is categorized correctly, which will be the focus of [JDK-8344158](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344158).
>> 
>> The wording here needs a slight update, and I'm not quite sure how to word this.  Ideas?  :) 
>> 
>>     Adding valid filter options to ssl will output the high-level SSL/TLS debug 
>>     messages, plus only those messages in the specified categories.
>
> yes, that's the logic in use now. The sub-component options need to be regarded as filters.
> 
> regards the wording, it's hard to chose the best description. What's there accurate in some respect.
> How about:
> 
> `Specifying filter options with "ssl" includes messages for the selected categories, as well as all general SSL debug messages.`

Maybe:

`Specifying filter options with "ssl" only includes messages for the selected categories, plus the general SSL debug messages.`

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18764#discussion_r2770980414