Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86635 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 18:27:02 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 18:27:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 16332 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2004 18:26:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 16124 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2004 18:26:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 16107 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 18:26:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO exchange.sun.com) (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 18:26:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 17105 invoked by uid 50); 26 Feb 2004 18:27:18 -0000 Date: 26 Feb 2004 18:27:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20040226182718.17104.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: dev@ant.apache.org Cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27261] - Properties.propertyNames() instead of .keys() X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . 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