On 24/07/2020 18:42, Joe Darcy wrote:
At least from a few minutes thinking, I don't see a meaningful
compatibility issue in replacing
1) a public constructor in an abstract class
with
2) a protected constructor in an abstract class
It is source compatible, subclasses would have access t
Hi Alan,
On 7/24/2020 3:34 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 24/07/2020 01:33, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
Please review the replacement of default constructors in various
abstract classes in java.net with explicit constructors:
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8250244.0/
CSR: https:/
On 24/07/2020 01:33, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
Please review the replacement of default constructors in various
abstract classes in java.net with explicit constructors:
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8250244.0/
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250245
(This is p
looks ok to me.
Vyom
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:05 AM Joe Darcy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please review the replacement of default constructors in various
> abstract classes in java.net with explicit constructors:
>
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8250244.0/
> CSR: https://bugs.op
Hello,
Please review the replacement of default constructors in various
abstract classes in java.net with explicit constructors:
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8250244.0/
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250245
(This is part of a larger effort to remove defaul
