8000354: (props) Properties.storeToXML/loadFromXML need to allow for alternative implementations (original) (raw)

Remi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Fri Oct 5 21:31:25 UTC 2012

Hi Alan, just some minor nits, in Properties.XmlSupport, 'provider' should be PROVIDER because it's a constant and instead of using loadProvider(), you should initialize PROVIDER in a static block.

line 1172, you declare a provider and line 1174, you initialize it, I think line 1174 should do the declaration and the initialization on the same line.

cheers, Rémi

On 10/05/2012 03:41 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:

Properties defines the loadFromXML and storeToXML methods for loading/storing properties in XML format. These methods are problematic for our efforts to modularize the JDK because of the dependency on XML. They are also problematic for the Compact Profiles proposal [1] as it is unlikely that JAXP will be present in the smallest profile. As the XML parsing needs of Properties is relatively simple we are thinking about including a small footprint parser that is sufficient for its needs. Joe Wang is looking this. In preparation for this we need to decouple Properties from the parser API that it uses and this is what the proposal here is about. The webrev with the proposed changes is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8000354/webrev/ Basically it introduces a JDK internal provider interface to which the loadFromXML and storeToXML methods delegate. The existing code that uses JAXP is moved into a provider implementation and will be used when present. When not present then the intention is that it will fallback to a default implementation that is the small footprint provider that Joe will add later. This approach ensures that we maintain compatibility (it remains to be seen whether we will have to deal with a few subtle issues when using the tiny parser). For test purposes there is a system property for overriding the provider, this is also why the system class loader is used as the initiating loader. I should explain that when I say "JDK internal provider interface" then the service type is in sun.util.spi for now. Maybe in the future it may be necessary to define a standard provider interface but it is not needed at this time (in addition it would require getting the security right to do that). Thanks, Alan. [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/161

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list