RFR: 8231640: (prop) Canonical property storage [v9]
jai.forums2013 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 15:52:28 UTC 2021
Based on these inputs, I have now updated the PR to use the value of
this new system property verbatim while writing out the comment. I
realize you mentioned that we should use this value if it is non-null
and non-empty. In my updated PR, I instead use this value only if it is
non-null and non-blank. I based it on my opinion that whitespace-only
comment through this system property, shouldn't be allowed. If however
you and others think that using non-empty check instead of non-blank
check is more appropriate, feel free to let me know and I'll update the
The new tests have been updated accordingly and they continue to pass
along with the existing ones in test/jdk/java/util/Properties/.
On 10/09/21 8:30 pm, Roger Riggs wrote:
> It does move the responsibility for that specific compatibility to the
> person defining the system property.
> I would document it as conventionally having the date in the format
> In the context of a reproducible build, where the property is expected
> to be used, the builder would be
> able to track down tools that were expecting a specific format and
> correct the input/property setting.
> I think the incorrectly formatted string would be more use for
> tracking down a problem
> than having the date be in the correct format but quietly different
> from what was expected.
> (As is, an unparseable property value is replaced by the current date).
> On 9/10/21 10:40 AM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> On 10/09/21 7:59 pm, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:15:45 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org>
>>> I'm inclined to agree with Magnus, supplying the property as a
>>> string, avoids hardcoding details that are not really in the domain
>>> of Properties. It opens up the option to omit the date and
>>> simplifies the code and spec.
>>> Since the tools exist at build time or in the setting of the
>>> property to format it as needed, Properties does not need to.
>>> If non-null and non-empty it would be inserted as a comment. The
>>> string would not contain the "# " prefix.
>> However, that goes against one of the goals this PR is trying to
>> achieve of backward compatibility of these existing store() APIs.
>> Allowing a free form text will mean that someone can feed a "foo bar"
>> and we will end up writing that as a comment, which essentially means
>> that the stored properties file no longer has any date comment.
>> Another example is, someone feeds a valid formatted text date to this
>> system property but that format doesn't match the format that is
>> advertized till date (the one which Date.toString() uses).
>> Are we willing to allow that?
More information about the core-libs-dev