On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 02:46:20 GMT, Weijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Can someone help review this update to the PSSParameterSpec class regarding
>> the constructor with int argument and the DEFAULT static field? Just added
>> @Deprecate javadoc tag and caution about their usage as suggested in the bug
>> record.
>>
>> A CSR will be filed once the wording changes are reviewed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 114:
>
>> 112: * recommended to explicitly specify all desired parameter
>> 113: * values with
>> 114: * {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String,
>> AlgorithmParameterSpec, int, int) PSSParameterSpec}.
>
> We are deprecating a field so I would say "This field uses default values
> defined in ... which may become...".
>
> Do we need to write "PKCS #1" with a blank inside? Same below.
>
> Also, the "all desired parameter values" phrase is perfect for the
> constructor below but this is for a field not a method so "parameters" does
> not make sense to me. How about something like "Instead of using this field,
> user should create a new `PSSParameterSpec` object by calling..." or we can
> just not mention it. User would need to create one anyway.
Well, I did a quick search, it seems both PKCS#X and PKCS #X are used
interchangeably. I use PKCS#X to be consistent within this file. Maybe it does
not matter much? I thought we tend to return without the space, e.g.
PKCS8EncodedKeySpec.getFormat(). Other wording suggestions incorporated. Thanks~
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7913
