I think the note is an example, may not need an additional CCC.
For easier reading, I may use a contrast example. For example, "Note
that this means "/-" implies "/foo" but not "foo".".
Use the one you like, I'm OK with the either.
Xuelei
On 12/21/2016 3:58 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm trying to understand this update. Does "/-" imply "/foo"?
Yes.
Does the following spec can be used to explain the new added note?
* <li>if the wildcard flag is "-", the simple pathname's path
* must be recursively inside the wildcard pathname's path.
Yes.
But the precise meaning of "recursively inside" is different between the
pre-jdk9 and jdk9 behaviors. The @implNote explains more.
--Max
Xuelei
On 12/19/2016 11:25 PM, 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
