On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 20:14:12 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Yes, that is fine; javadoc will filter out displaying non-public classes in >> a permits clause. > > Just to double-check, it is fine to have it in the output of the > getPermittedSubclasses for the public class as well? I'm not certain what question you are asking. If the question is, is it fine for core reflection to return non-public information about the class, in general sure. For example, in jshell evaluating StringBuilder.class.getSuperclass() will yield class java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder which is the non-public superclass of StringBuffer and StringBuilder. If the question is, do the compatibility expectations of the platform include such visible non-public implementation artifacts? The answer is no; it is fine for those details to evolve and users shouldn't rely on them. Is there another aspect of the change that was a concern? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8082
