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/PEMDecoder.java line 105:

> 103:  * during decoding. The {@link #withDecryption(char[])} method 
> configures the
> 104:  * decoder to decrypt and decode encrypted private key PEM data using 
> the given
> 105:  * password. If decryption fails, an {@link CryptoException} is thrown.

s/an/a/

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMDecoder.java line 112:

> 110:  * The {@code BinaryEncodable} interface may evolve. When using a decode 
> method
> 111:  * with {@code switch}, always include a {@code default} case rather than
> 112:  * relying on this permits list to remain fixed. An exhaustive {@code 
> switch}

suggest rewording as "... relying on the classes specified in the `permits` 
clause to remain fixed."

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3191521346
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3191527922

Reply via email to