On Mon, 4 May 2026 17:13:45 GMT, Anthony Scarpino <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Please review the finalized PEM API at https://openjdk.org/jeps/8376991. The >> most significant changes from the second preview, JEP 524 >> (https://openjdk.org/jeps/524), include: >> >> - The `PEM` class is now an ordinary class rather than a record. It adds >> Binary-encoded content constructors and data is defensively copied. >> - The `DEREncodable` interface is renamed to `BinaryEncodable` to more >> accurately reflect the binary data stored in PEM text. >> - In `EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo`, the `encrypt` methods now accept >> `BinaryEncodable`, and the `getKey()` and `getKeyPair()` methods no longer >> include a `Provider` parameter. >> - A new `CryptoException` class indicates failures in cryptographic >> processing at runtime. >> >> thanks >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Anthony Scarpino has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > comments and new clear() src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEM.java line 103: > 101: /** > 102: * Creates a {@code PEM} instance with the specified type and > Base64-encoded > 103: * content. {@code leadingData} is set to {@code null}. It is a bit unusual in this method and other methods to refer to leadingData, content, and type in code font as if they were public variables. I think this is an artifact from when this class was a record and those parameters appeared in the javadoc as record components. For this method, I would just remove `{@code leadingData} is set to {@code null}` as we don't typically say anything about parameters that are not specified. src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEM.java line 149: > 147: /** > 148: * Creates a {@code PEM} instance with the specified type and binary > content. > 149: * {@code leadingData} is set to {@code null}. Suggest removing `{@code leadingData} is set to {@code null}.` See prior comment. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3190707062 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3190718663
