Given the lack of feedback, I'm guessing this is just a bug. Filed
On 07/02/2013 09:34 AM, Jason Lowe wrote:
> Someone in our group recently discovered that Configuration parameters
> marked final can still be set(). The final designation only seems to
> be important when loading resources and is ignored when individual
> properties are modified. The javadocs do call out loaded resources
> explicitly, but there's no indication as to why final properties are
> not checked during individual property modifications. Bug or
> intentional? Will something break if it calls set() and subsequently
> doesn't see the updated value because the final parameter silently
> ignored the new setting?
> The lack of checks in the set methods appear to be an oversight, but
> maybe I'm missing a use case?