On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 21:10:10 GMT, Phil Race <p...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> We should either prevent null being set or catch all those nulls. >> >> I did that in 1st iteration of this >> PR..https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/4989/files/2a2ab50ded3305f3a9e0f01e90417b484a0b2db4 >> >> >> @prrace Should I bring that fix back? >> >>> Just add advisory doc on the protected field too. >> >>> ok, this is part of what this change do, probably the text should be >>> rephrased there? >> What should be the advisory phrase? Will the text I have added in the >> protected field doc not suffice? > >> > We should either prevent null being set or catch all those nulls. >> >> I did that in 1st iteration of this >> PR..https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/4989/files/2a2ab50ded3305f3a9e0f01e90417b484a0b2db4 >> >> @prrace Should I bring that fix back? >> > > You are reading my "there are two options text" and the code you propose to > bring back is NOT the option > I recommended. > >> > Just add advisory doc on the protected field too. >> >> > ok, this is part of what this change do, probably the text should be >> > rephrased there? >> > What should be the advisory phrase? Will the text I have added in the >> > protected field doc not suffice? > > Something like "subclassers must ensure this is set to a non-null value > during construction and not set this to null" @prrace Any comment on this? I am just preventing "null being set" as was recommended. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4989
