ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27261] - Properties.propertyNames() instead of .keys()
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:27:18 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27261>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27261

Properties.propertyNames() instead of .keys()





------- Additional Comments From jessh@ptc.com  2004-02-26 18:27 -------
Mike and I are unaware of any issues with the

  System.getProperties().put(...)

calls noted in the last comment.

Clearly any Properties.keys() or Properties.get() usage will be a 
problem *IF* the Properties object has defaults.

Also, it is clear that any System.getProperties() object may well have 
defaults thanks to System.setProperties() usages and we should thus look for
this in conjunction with keys() and/or get() usage.

It is unclear which other Properties usages (some of which are currently typed
as Hashtables but pass Properties objects) should be switched to be safe with
respect to defaults.

All in all this smacks of a design bug in Properties.  The default keys() and
get() should really operate on the whole property set -- including defaults. 
One should have to go out of one's way to avoid including them.  I suspect this
behavior is an unfortunate side-effect of implementing Properties as a fairly
lazy sub-class of Hashtable rather than as a aggregation or some such.

Whatever the case, Ant needs to deal with this situation better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message