Hmm, for me the property order is not how I put the accessors into my source code. This seems to differ between JVMs. The Java documentation states: "The elements in the returned array are not sorted and are not in any particular order." http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getMethods%28%29 In my opinion it is better to set a certain order as default. For those people having a JVM which orders methods like they are in source code it might be a bad surprise when they run their application on a different machine and notice the order is different. Usually, you do not handle the Properties object manually but just use Inspector.getInspector. A very convenient way to handle properties are probably annotations. In this way you could also attach a comparator to specify the order for the generated properties and set options like domain directly at the accessors. Best regards, Christian On 17.03.2016 16:18, Sean Luke wrote: > Yeah, that's a documentation error. But before I change it, any > opinions? > > SimpleProperties is kind of in flux. I added the ability to sort the > properties arbitrarily (not documented), and the sort based on an > array of strings representing property names (the poorly named > makeFilterComparator(...) -- I will change that method name). And > the ability to sort alphabetically. And of course no sorting. > > Originally I was going to make alphabetical sorting the default. But > I've since found that alphabetical ordering can be a real pain. > People put methods in their source code in a specific order *on > purpose*, and alphabetical ordering totally messes with that. So I > removed the alphabetical ordering default but kept it as an option. > What's your opinion on this? > > Sean > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:21 AM, Christian Meyer > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just noticed that SimpleProperties gets initialized without a >> sortComparator (null), although documentation states that it sorts >> alphabetically by default. >> >> Best regards, Christian