On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 13:49:26 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review the code for the second iteration of sealed classes. In this >> iteration we are: >> >> - Enhancing narrowing reference conversion to allow for stricter checking of >> cast conversions with respect to sealed type hierarchies >> - Also local classes are not considered when determining implicitly declared >> permitted direct subclasses of a sealed class or sealed interface >> - renaming Class::permittedSubclasses to Class::getPermittedSubclasses, >> still in the same method, the return type has been changed to Class<?>[] >> instead of the previous ClassDesc[] >> - adding code to make sure that annotations can't be sealed >> - improving some tests >> >> TIA >> >> Related specs: >> [Sealed Classes >> JSL](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep397/jep397-20201104/specs/sealed-classes-jls.html) >> [Sealed Classes >> JVMS](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep397/jep397-20201104/specs/sealed-classes-jvms.html) >> [Additional: Contextual >> Keywords](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep397/jep397-20201104/specs/contextual-keywords-jls.html) > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Package.java line 227: > >> 225: * This method reports on a distinct concept of sealing from >> 226: * {@link Class#isSealed() Class::isSealed}. >> 227: * > > This API note will be very confusing to readers. I think the javadoc will > need to be fleshed out and probably will need to link to a section the > Package class description that defines the legacy concept of sealing. I agree. This @apiNote needs more clarification to help the readers to understand the context here. One thing we could do in the Package class description to add a "Package Sealing" section that can also explain that it has no relationship to "sealed classes". ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1227
