On Fri, 21 May 2021 15:54:50 GMT, Chris Hegarty <che...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Roger Riggs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Simplify factory interface to BinaryOperator<ObjectInputFilter> and >> cleanup the example > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/ObjectInputFilter.java line 365: > >> 363: * A utility class to set and get the JVM-wide deserialization >> filter factory, >> 364: * the static JVM-wide filter, or to create a filter from a pattern >> string. >> 365: * If a JVM-wide filter factory or static JVM-wide filter is set, >> it will determine the filter > > This concerns me, "A JVM-wide filter factory". I was going to suggest that it > should be "The ..", but then realised that there can only ever be one present > at a time, but in the lifetime of a JVM there can be two (since > getSerialFilterFactory if invoked before setSerialFilterFactory will > subsequently return a different JVM-wide factory). Is this intentional? It > would great if this could be "The ..", so that setXXX can only be invoked > successfully if getXXX has not been. This may seen somewhat insignificant, > but the fact that the JVM-wide factory can change make the model harder > understand. It is reasonable to require that the factory be set before any OIS is constructed. Similar to the restriction that the filter on a stream cannot be changed after the first call to readObject. So an IllegalStateException added to Config.setSerialFilterFactory. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3996
