On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:08:26 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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.
Sure.
> 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.`
Makes sense.
> 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.
Yes.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7913
