On 3/21/18 11:27 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/ByteArrayOutputStream.java
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/ByteArrayOutputStream.java
@@ -158,15 +158,16 @@
count += len;
}
/**
* Writes the complete contents of the specified byte array
* to this {@code ByteArrayOutputStream}.
*
- * <p> This method is equivalent to {@link #write(byte[],int,int)
+ * @implSpec
+ * This method is equivalent to {@link #write(byte[],int,int)
* write(b ,0, b.length)}.
*
* @param b the data.
* @throws NullPointerException if {@code b} is {@code null}.
* @since 11
*/
public void writeBytes(byte b[]) {
Sorry, this is an @apiNote, not an @implSpec.
Having this as an @implSpec sounds as if the implementation of this method in
BAOS is *required* to call write(b, 0, b.length). It happens to do that in the
current webrev, but this is not a requirement on the implementation. (At least
that doesn't appear to be the intent.)
Instead, this statement explains and clarifies, but otherwise doesn't add any
testable assertions or change any semantics of the contract specified in the
first sentence of the doc. Thus, it's a note on the API.
Thanks,
s'marks
Thanks,
Brina
On Mar 21, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
wrote:
I’ll change before pushing.
Thanks,
Brian
On Mar 21, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
An @impSpec for that is fine with me.
