On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 27/03/2018 00:09, David Lloyd wrote: >> I was going for some kind of consistency with the array variants (that >> is, name the parameter what it is), though they simply use "b" for >> their parameter name so that interpretation might be a stretch. >> Should I update them all? > > I think this would be good, if you don't mind doing it.
OK. >> I'm not 100% familiar with the new JavaDoc categories (ok I'm 0% >> familiar), but the JEP for these says "This category consists of >> commentary, rationale, or examples pertaining to the API.". But this >> feels more like specification to me since it is "specifications that >> apply to all valid implementations, including preconditions, >> postconditions, etc.". Which is to say, if you don't provide enough >> remaining space in the output buffer, you will have incorrect >> operation as a result. WDYT? > > The current wording (which pre-dates your changes of course) reads more like > API advice. I think it's a bit confusing too as it doesn't define what a > "flush marker" is. I think we will need to re-word that sentence to make it > clearer. OK. I am at a loss for a better way to explain it though; any suggestions? >>> I don't have cycles just now to go through all the implementation but I >>> think Sherman is doing that. It will need careful review to avoid being >>> abused to attack memory outside of the buffer. I did check the use of >>> position() and limit() to calculate the remaining and these need correct. >> >> I hope this was a typo of "these seem correct" and not a typo of >> "these need correcting"? > > Oops, this was indeed a typo in my mail. OK great. -- - DML
