On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 12:07:31 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Alexander Matveev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into JDK-8356047
>> - 8356047: [macos] jpackage produces confusing post- and pre- installation
>> PKG scripts [v2]
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into JDK-8356047
>> - 8356047: [macos] jpackage produces confusing post- and pre- installation
>> PKG scripts
>
> src/jdk.jpackage/unix/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/PackageScripts.java line
> 81:
>
>> 79: static class ResourceConfig {
>> 80:
>> 81: ResourceConfig(String defaultName, String categoryId, boolean
>> noDefault) {
>
> Don't you think `String defaultName, String categoryId, boolean noDefault`
> signature looks odd? You have a parameter specifying the default name and
> another parameter that specifies if the default name is set or not.
>
> Wouldn't:
>
> ResourceConfig(Optional<String> defaultName, String categoryId)
>
> be less confusing?
>
> For backward compatibility keep the old ctor, but redefine it:
>
> ResourceConfig(String defaultName, String categoryId) {
> this(Optional.of(defaultName), categoryId);
> }
In your suggested case how `ResourceConfig.getDefaultPublicName()` will figure
out public name for resource if `defaultName` is not provided? Maybe `String
resourceName, String categoryId, boolean noDefault` will be less confusing?
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25510#discussion_r2383411402
