Hi Jonathan, the aim isn't to add an in-depth explanation to the code about exactly the circumstance that led to this constructor and comment being added, but to put a clear message that it was simply, in fact, deliberate, so even the proposed comment might be going further than strictly necessary.
I'm also not convinced of the value of putting explicit links to the bug actually pushed, since there's an implicit link in the commit itself anyhow. Thanks! /Claes On 2016-10-04 23:20, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote:
The explanation which Stuart gives for this change in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 seems to describe why this constructor is needed much better than the comment itself does. So I wonder if it's worth adding the link to the bug report in the comment. E.g. // prevent generation of synthetic class required for access to private // constructor. See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 Kind regards, Jonathan On 4 October 2016 at 21:28, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com <mailto:stuart.ma...@oracle.com>> wrote: On 10/4/16 3:55 AM, Claes Redestad wrote: On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/> OK. Thanks for the speedy review! :-) Thanks for looking at this. The shorter text in the bug report is ok too. s'marks
