On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:20:22 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Anyone can help review this javadoc update? The main change is the wording
>> for the method javadoc of
>> Cipher.getParameters()/CipherSpi.engineGetParameters(). The original wording
>> is somewhat restrictive and request is to broaden this to accommodate more
>> scenarios such as when null can be returned.
>> The rest are minor things like add {@code } to class name and null, and
>> remove redundant ".".
>>
>> Will file CSR after the review is close to being wrapped up.
>> Thanks~
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 488:
>
>> 486: * A new {@code Cipher} object encapsulating the
>> 487: * {@code CipherSpi} implementation from the first
>> 488: * Provider that supports the specified algorithm is returned.
>
> Since "Provider" is capitalized, I think the intent was that this was the
> classname, so it should also probably be in an `@code` tag. Alternatively,
> you could change this to non-capitalized "provider" (w/o the @code tag) and I
> think it would still be readable (and my vote would be for this).
Sure, I will use the non-capitalized "provider" whenever suitable. For some
cases, there are "provider" argument, so it looks that {@code provider} is more
suitable.
> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 655:
>
>> 653: *
>> 654: * <p> A new {@code Cipher} object encapsulating the
>> 655: * {@code CipherSpi} implementation from the specified Provider
>
> Since `Provider` here is a parameter, it is probably better to put this in an
> `@code` tag.
Yes, I will use the {@code provider} for the "provider" parameter.
> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 2641:
>
>> 2639: *
>> 2640: * @param transformation the cipher transformation
>> 2641: * @return the maximum key length in bits or Integer.MAX_VALUE
>
> Integer.MAX_VALUE should be inside a `@code` tag.
Ok.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8117
