Hi Max,
Comments:
- Is there a better term/phrase to use other than "foo"; it does not
appear elsewhere in the @implNote.
The use of "cpath" and "npath" implies that someone is reading the
source code.
The description of the behavior of the implementation should use the
same terminology as the spec.
- The use of "Note" weakens the text as specification language. It
can be omitted.
- To make the source version more readable, I would keep each
statement on its own line.
Note that this means "/-" does not imply "foo".
An invalid {@code FilePermission} does not imply any object except for
itself.
Thanks, Roger
On 12/20/2016 2:25 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
Ping again.
On Dec 14, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Wang Weijun <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
An clarification is added to FilePermission::implies:
* @implNote
....
* a simple {@code npath} is recursively inside a wildcard {@code npath}
* if and only if {@code simple_npath.relativize(wildcard_npath)}
- * is a series of one or more "..". An invalid {@code FilePermission} does
+ * is a series of one or more "..". Note that this means "/-" does not
+ * imply "foo". An invalid {@code FilePermission} does
* not imply any object except for itself.
The newly added sentence is
Note that this means "/-" does not imply "foo".
JCK has agreed to update their test.
Since this is just a clarification inside an @implNote and no spec is updated,
I suppose no CCC is needed. Please confirm.
Thanks
Max
