On Thu, 12 May 2022 12:24:17 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> While doing a CSR review of another issue, I noticed some cases in >> InputStream and OutputStream what would benefit from being upgraded to >> implSpec and related javadoc tags. >> >> The "A subclass must provide an implementation of this method." statements >> on several abstract methods don't add much value, but I chose to leave them >> in for this request. >> >> Please also review the corresponding CSR: >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8286605 > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/InputStream.java line 177: > >> 175: * >> 176: * @apiNote >> 177: * A subclass must provide an implementation of this method. > > Is this sentence useful to keep? The method is abstract so a concrete > implementation has to implement it. On the other other hand, an abstract > subclass does not need to implement it. If such a sentence occurred in new code, I would recommend it be removed. I left it in place in the spirit of just adding apiNote, implSpec, etc., but I'm happy to delete these comments too. I assume it was deemed useful to readers of JDK 1.0, but the assumed background of Java developers now is rather different :-) > src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/InputStream.java line 688: > >> 686: * @implSpec >> 687: * The {@code mark} method of {@code InputStream} does >> 688: * nothing. > > Minor nit but the line break can be removed so that "nothing" is on the same > line. Sure. (I default to not making such reflow changes in the initial version of a patch to avoid spurious diffs. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8663
