> On Dec 12, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Max,
>
> Don't count me as reviewer - but I see a mismatched comment
> in the file:
>
> 209 /**
> 210 * Creates FilePermission objects with special internals.
> 211 * See {@link FilePermCompat#newPermPlusAltPath(Permission)} and
> 212 * {@link FilePermCompat#newPermUsingAltPath(Permission)}.
> 213 */
> 214
> 215 private static final Path here = builtInFS.getPath(
> 216 GetPropertyAction.privilegedGetProperty("user.dir"));
>
> I guess the comment is a left over from some merge or previous fix?
These are 2 different methods: "Plus" and "Using".
>
>
> Also I noticed the following later on:
>
> 541 * invalid {@code FilePermission}. Even if two {@code FilePermission}
> 542 * are created with the same invalid path, one does imply the other.
>
> should this be:
>
> Even if two {@code FilePermission} are created with the same
> invalid path, one does *not* imply the other.
Ah, yes.
Thanks
Max
>
> best regards,
>
> -- daniel
>
> On 12/12/16 09:01, Wang Weijun wrote:
>> Please take a review at
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8168979/webrev.00/
>>
>> This further clarifies what an invalid FilePermission behaves. A major
>> behavior change is that <<ALL FILES>> now implies an invalid permission, I
>> hope this is good to minimize incompatibility.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>
