Hi,

I may be missing something here but the 2.5 document lists "name" parameter as optional. So if not using it results in an exception, it should be a bug. Right? If there is a mention in the document that "name" must be passed (directly or indirectly), can you please point that out? As I said, I might have missed it. If this is accepted as a bug, then it alone can be fixed instead of back porting entire 54335 changes?. Of course, I don't know how easy it is to fix this issue alone and if is closely intertwined with those changes, then it doesn't make sense to fix this issue separately in 2.5.

Thanks,
Raghu.