I'm happy with this change whether or not the slightly more evocative "protected" is used.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 5:43 PM Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > On 7/23/2020 5:24 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > > So these are all abstract classes where the constructor can only be > > called via super() ? > > Yep. > > > In which case one would expect the constructors to be protected, not public. > > But I'm probably missing some reason why "protected" would not be 100% > > compatible. > > It would be compatible (AFAICT), but the current (implicit) default > constructors are public, since the classes are public, so I made the new > explicit constructors public. > > On the assumption the upstream JDK 166-alpha repo would want to take in > this change for as many releases as possible, the public constructors > could be used for earlier release trains too. > > > Historically, we've preferred to put changes in via CVS, but in 2020, > > we might prefer you make the change directly in openjdk. > > Doug? > > > I'm happy to make the changes in OpenJDK for JDK 16. > > Thanks, > > -Joe >
