On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:15:30 GMT, Kevin Driver <kdri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/KDF.java line 317:
>>
>>> 315: * if no {@code Provider} supports a {@code KDFSpi}
>>> implementation for
>>> 316: * the specified algorithm
>>> 317: * @throws InvalidAlgorithmParameterException
>>
>> No IAPE is thrown in the current implementation.
>
> This is declared for implementation use. Are you arguing that no
> implementation may require it?
This is `KDF` not `KDFSpi`, the implementation is in this file. I just meant
this exception should be thrown when the condition described here is met.
>> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/KDFSpi.java line 54:
>>
>>> 52: * {@code KDFParameters} may throw an {@code
>>> InvalidAlgorithmParameterException}
>>> 53: * upon receiving a {@code null} value. Furthermore, implementations
>>> 54: * may supply default values for {@code KDFParameters}, mutating the
>>
>> The `mutating` word is suspicious. The object is very likely to be
>> immutable. Just say a different object should be returned in the next
>> sentence.
>
> This depends on the implementation. It may be just as inaccurate to say "a
> different object".
OK, maybe you can just say the "actual" object. I still think `mutating` is
strange.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20301#discussion_r1731682691
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20301#discussion_r1731684535
