http://errorprone.info/bugpattern/PrivateConstructorForUtilityClass
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On 28 Apr 2017, at 14:10, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > As this is a binary incompatible change, effectively removing a public > constructor, I'd prefer if this change got into JDK 9 instead, pending the > review process of course. > > > > Fair point, the earlier the better in that regard. > > > > (I've thought it would be worthwhile to audit the JDK for default > constructors and/or add a javac lint warning for that situation, but I > haven't done that, yet.) > > > > If we used something like error prone (perhaps with integration into > javac) i presume this would be rather easy to do. > > Paul. > >
