On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:18:20 GMT, Valerie Peng <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Can someone help review this update to the PSSParameterSpec class regarding
>> the constructor with int argument and the DEFAULT static field? Just added
>> @Deprecate javadoc tag and caution about their usage as suggested in the bug
>> record.
>>
>> A CSR will be filed once the wording changes are reviewed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>
> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Update again with Sean's wording suggestion.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 98:
> 96:
> 97: /**
> 98: * The PSS parameter set with all default values
Nit - add period at end of sentence.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 106:
> 104: * a new {@code PSSParameterSpec} with the desired parameter
> values
> 105: * using
> 106: * {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String,
> AlgorithmParameterSpec, int, int) PSSParameterSpec}.
I think it would be more clear to see the full signature of the ctor that you
are recommending be used instead, so I would change these 2 lines to:
`using the {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String, AlgorithmParameterSpec,
int, int)} constructor.`
src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 175:
> 173: * standard for more details. Thus, it is recommended to
> explicitly
> 174: * specify all desired parameter values with
> 175: * {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String,
> AlgorithmParameterSpec, int, int) PSSParameterSpec}.
Same comment about seeing the full signature of the ctor as mentioned above.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7913
