svn commit: r1534361 - /commons/proper/configuration/branches/CONFIGURATION_1_X_MAINTENANCE/src/changes/changes.xml

Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:24:49 -0700 

Author: henning
Date: Mon Oct 21 20:23:53 2013
New Revision: 1534361

URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1534361
Log:
add missing changes.xml entries

Modified:
    
commons/proper/configuration/branches/CONFIGURATION_1_X_MAINTENANCE/src/changes/changes.xml

Modified: 
commons/proper/configuration/branches/CONFIGURATION_1_X_MAINTENANCE/src/changes/changes.xml
URL: 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/configuration/branches/CONFIGURATION_1_X_MAINTENANCE/src/changes/changes.xml?rev=1534361&r1=1534360&r2=1534361&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- 
commons/proper/configuration/branches/CONFIGURATION_1_X_MAINTENANCE/src/changes/changes.xml
 (original)
+++ 
commons/proper/configuration/branches/CONFIGURATION_1_X_MAINTENANCE/src/changes/changes.xml
 Mon Oct 21 20:23:53 2013
@@ -25,6 +25,30 @@
   </properties>
 
   <body>
+    <release version="1.10" date="in SVN"
+      description="Minor bug fixes and improvements">
+      <action dev="henning" type="fix" issue="CONFIGURATION-556">
+        In 1.7 and before, any change to the system properties was
+        immediately reflected in a SystemConfiguration object. This
+        behaviour broke in 1.8 and 1.9. This has been fixed for 1.10.
+      </action>
+      <action dev="henning" type="fix" issue="CONFIGURATION-557">
+        In 1.7 and before, it was possible to pass an arbitrary Map
+        into the constructor of MapConfiguration. With the
+        generification in 1.8, this actually broke and it was no
+        longer possible to pass in e.g. a Map&lt;String, String&gt;
+        because the signature now required a Map&lt;String,
+        Object&gt;. Changing the constructor to accept a
+        Map&lt;String, ?&gt; restores this.
+      </action>
+      <action dev="henning" type="fix" issue="CONFIGURATION-558">
+        Similar to CONFIGURATION-557, the getList(String, List) method
+        was generified to be getList(String, List&lt;Object&gt;) but
+        needs to be getList(String, List&lt;?&gt;) so that code that
+        used a more specific list (such as a List&lt;String&gt;) still
+        compiles against the new API.
+      </action>
+    </release>
     <release version="1.9" date="2012-08-08"
       description="Minor bug fixes and improvements">
       <action dev="oheger" type="update" issue="CONFIGURATION-503" 
due-to="Tino Sino">

Reply via email to