On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:31:47 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I’m not suggesting any source changes, but this documentation update >> explicitly states: >>> Sub-options are specified by appending a ":" to the option, followed by a >>> list of one more sub-options separated by a comma. >> >> This breaks existing usages. In fact, unless (as Seán C suggested) we drop >> the 2 modifiers entirely and make them always on, I don’t see a good way to >> fix it later if we keep the current grammar. For example, we might have to >> hardcode what are options and what are sub-options, so that we can detect >> that `verbose` here is a sub-option of `certpath` and the comma before it is >> ignored in the 1st round of string splitting. This would add significant >> complexity. > > Well we are dealing with a syntax that was never specified and is very > loosely defined. Either we remove some of the syntax and leave it undefined, > or we make sure the syntax works and add more constraints or delimiters, > which could break existing usages. But I'm also not sure how much we need to > really accommodate corner cases. I don't see any way to specify the syntax of sub-options without also causing the issue in your example above and preserving compatibility. I think we would need to break compatibility. Maybe something like: -Djava.security.debug=certpath+timestamp[ocsp,verbose] ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23569#discussion_r1985594440
