commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Kiesel <>
Subject Re: [configuration] 1.10 regression / backwards-incompatible change in MapConfiguration.convertPropertiesToMap ?
Date Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:43:36 GMT
> Hi Norbert,
> due to lack of time, I recently only focused on Configuration 2.0 and
> intended to let the 1.x series slowly die. Therefore, my priority is to
> get 2.0 ready and push the release out. If I understand correctly, the
> implementation in 2.0 satisfies your needs, except that some generic
> types still have to be adapted (passing a Map<String, ?> to the
> constructor rather than a Map<String, Object>). Is this correct?

Yes, 2.0 satifies our need (even the current version, though I agree with your
suggested type change).

> Patches for a 1.11 fix release are of course welcome, but I cannot
> promise that I will be able to actually do a 1.11 release in the near
> future. If somebody else steps up and volunteers to do this, this would
> of course be another story.

Understood.  Really only trying to help here, not to produce more work for you
or the community.  We will simply stick with 1.9 until 2.0 is out.

> ...
> >
> > The way out for a potential 1.11 would be to override more of the the
> > AbstractMap API to make that a mutable map backed by the Properties object.  Do
> > you want me to provide a patch along these lines?
> This approach would probably work, but it seems like unnecessary
> complexity. Accessing the passed in Properties object directly - as done
> in 2.0 - is more straight-forward, isn't it?

This would break backwards compatibility: 1.x promises to actively weed out
entries with non-string keys from the passed Properties object. So anyone
depending on this would be in for a surprise.  2.0 instead warns callers that they have to
ensure that they don't pass such entries.  This makes life simpler for the implementation
and is IMHO very good for an API-breaking 2.x but not for 1.x.

I don't want to waste anyone's time here, so unless you tell me that you want to see the
revised patch or otherwise actively engage, I will shut up on this topic.  Was a pleasure
talk to you and thanks for your community work!


Confidentiality Notice:This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message contains
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this
e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing,
copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message