On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:08:12 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252195
>> is another one of the issues adding missing explicit no-args constructors in
>> the desktop module.
>>
>> As well as being nested, these are all concrete, but protected, classes and
>> so
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252195
> is another one of the issues adding missing explicit no-args constructors in
> the desktop module.
>
> As well as being nested, these are all concrete, but protected, classes and
> so the constructors
> are protected.
>
> CSR here https://bug
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 20:17:36 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252195
> is another one of the issues adding missing explicit no-args constructors in
> the desktop module.
>
> As well as being nested, these are all concrete, but protected, classes and
> so the co
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 20:17:36 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252195
> is another one of the issues adding missing explicit no-args constructors in
> the desktop module.
>
> As well as being nested, these are all concrete, but protected, classes and
> so the co
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8252195
is another one of the issues adding missing explicit no-args constructors in
the desktop module.
As well as being nested, these are all concrete, but protected, classes and so
the constructors
are protected.
CSR here https://bugs.openjdk.java.net
