On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:07:11 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbena...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/formats/html/HtmlDocletWriter.java
>> line 2519:
>>
>>> 2517: target.add(previewDiv);
>>> 2518: } else if ((forWhat.getKind().isClass() ||
>>> forWhat.getKind().isInterface())
>>> 2519: && !utils.nonPreviewExtendsPreview(forWhat)) {
>>
>> It appears you are excluding a type from getting a preview notice by
>> checking a condition that is elsewhere used to decide it needs a preview
>> notice. IMO the better solution would be to not give it a preview notice in
>> the first place by not checking implemented interfaces for classes in
>> `Utils.declaredUsingPreviewAPIs(Element)`. (An interface extending a preview
>> interface is a different case again, although I don't think that should ever
>> occur in the JDK.)
>>
>> That leaves open the case where a preview interface introduces a default
>> method (which is being fixed for javac in
>> [JDK-8343540](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343540)), but I would
>> consider that a separate issue.
>
> I think I fixed it in
> [f8b3110](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22126/commits/f8b3110c389d65c6cddbafbb28f554aeb93ebab1).
> The solution looks simpler without any of the added methods, thanks.
>
>> (An interface extending a preview interface is a different case again,
>> although I don't think that should ever occur in the JDK.)
>
> Is this a typo? because I think this is exactly what the [PEM Encodings
> JEP](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/17543/files) does.
>
>
> public non-sealed interface AsymmetricKey extends Key, DEREncodable {
> }
You're right. Not a typo, just a fallacy. :)
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22126#discussion_r1858911884
