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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
