On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:14:04 GMT, Valerie Peng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyone can help review this javadoc update? The main change is the wording
> for the method javadoc of
> Cipher.getParameters()/CipherSpi.engineGetParameters(). The original wording
> is somewhat restrictive and request is to broaden this to accommodate more
> scenarios such as when null can be returned.
> The rest are minor things like add {@code } to class name and null, and
> remove redundant ".".
>
> Will file CSR after the review is close to being wrapped up.
> Thanks~
src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 488:
> 486: * A new {@code Cipher} object encapsulating the
> 487: * {@code CipherSpi} implementation from the first
> 488: * Provider that supports the specified algorithm is returned.
Since "Provider" is capitalized, I think the intent was that this was the
classname, so it should also probably be in an `@code` tag. Alternatively, you
could change this to non-capitalized "provider" (w/o the @code tag) and I think
it would still be readable (and my vote would be for this).
src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 655:
> 653: *
> 654: * <p> A new {@code Cipher} object encapsulating the
> 655: * {@code CipherSpi} implementation from the specified Provider
Since `Provider` here is a parameter, it is probably better to put this in an
`@code` tag.
src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 2641:
> 2639: *
> 2640: * @param transformation the cipher transformation
> 2641: * @return the maximum key length in bits or Integer.MAX_VALUE
Integer.MAX_VALUE should be inside a `@code` tag.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8117
