On Wed, 13 May 2026 21:21:08 GMT, Weijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anthony Scarpino has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> zero IS
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMDecoder.java line 109:
>
>> 107: * for decryption, an {@link EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo} is returned.
>> 108: * A {@code PEMDecoder} configured for decryption can also decode
>> unencrypted PEM.
>> 109: *
>
> Add a `<p>` here.
grrr.. that fix must of got lost
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMDecoder.java line 125:
>
>> 123: * <p> Example: configure decryption and a factory provider:
>> 124: * {@snippet lang = java:
>> 125: * PEMDecoder pd = PEMDecoder.of().withDecryption(password).
>
> We usually put the `.` on the new line when a line break is inserted.
I realize the style guide wants a `.` after the line break, but I'm conditioned
to put it before. If I changed it here, there is likely many more I'd have to
change. I'd rather just be consistent that mix & match.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMDecoder.java line 330:
>
>> 328: * @throws EOFException if no PEM data is found or the stream ends
>> unexpectedly
>> 329: * @throws IllegalArgumentException if decoding fails
>> 330: * @throws NullPointerException when {@code is} is {@code null}
>
> The 2 consecutive `is` sound awkward. In fact, I've looked at other APIs that
> take `InputStream` as an argument and most of them name it `in`.
I changed it to `InputStream`
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMEncoder.java line 89:
>
>> 87: * <li>{@link PrivateKey}: ENCRYPTED PRIVATE KEY</li>
>> 88: * <li>{@link KeyPair}: ENCRYPTED PRIVATE KEY</li>
>> 89: * <li>{@link PKCS8EncodedKeySpec}: ENCRYPTED PRIVATE KEY</li>
>
> Show we list them with the same type, or we should say all three classes
> encode to one single type?
I believe this has come up in other preview review, listing them like this was
the decision.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3238064584
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3238073691
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3238179924
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r3238292310
