On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 20:58:17 GMT, Weijun Wang <wei...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Valerie fix
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 505:
>
>> 503: * <p> A new {@code Policy} object encapsulating the
>> 504: * {@code PolicySpi} implementation from the specified Provider
>> 505: * object is returned. Note that the specified Provider object
>
> Provider, twice.
Changed to "provider".
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 517:
>
>> 515: * {@code null}.
>> 516: *
>> 517: * @param provider the Provider.
>
> Provider.
used `{@code Provider}`
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 581:
>
>> 579: * Otherwise this method returns {@code null}.
>> 580: *
>> 581: * @return the Provider of this Policy, or {@code null}.
>
> Provider, L575/577/581. Maybe "provider". Or wrap in code.
Fixed.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 596:
>
>> 594: * Otherwise this method returns {@code null}.
>> 595: *
>> 596: * @return the type of this Policy, or {@code null}.
>
> Policy, L590/596.
Fixed.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 611:
>
>> 609: * Otherwise this method returns {@code null}.
>> 610: *
>> 611: * @return Policy parameters, or {@code null}.
>
> Policy, L605/611.
used `{@code Policy}`
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 53:
>
>> 51: * policies, a {@code ProtectionDomain} can also be constructed such
>> that it
>> 52: * is dynamically mapped to a set of permissions by the current Policy
>> whenever
>> 53: * a permission is checked.
>
> Policy, L50/52.
used "policy"
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 166:
>
>> 164: * Permissions object.
>> 165: * <p>
>> 166: * The permissions granted to this domain are static, i.e.
>
> CodeSource, Permissions. Note it's PermissionCollection here. So maybe use
> "permissions".
used "permissions"
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 192:
>
>> 190: /**
>> 191: * Creates a new {@code ProtectionDomain} qualified by the given
>> CodeSource,
>> 192: * Permissions, ClassLoader and array of Principals. If the
>
> Same as above, plus ClassLoader and Principal.
Fixed.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 241:
>
>> 239: /**
>> 240: * Returns the CodeSource of this domain.
>> 241: * @return the CodeSource of this domain which may be {@code null}.
>
> CodeSource.
used `{@code Codesource}`
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 251:
>
>> 249: /**
>> 250: * Returns the ClassLoader of this domain.
>> 251: * @return the ClassLoader of this domain which may be {@code null}.
>
> ClassLoader.
used `{@code ClassLoader}`
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 298:
>
>> 296: /**
>> 297: * Check and see if this {@code ProtectionDomain} implies the
>> permissions
>> 298: * expressed in the Permission object.
>
> Permission.
used `{@code Permission}`
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProtectionDomain.java line 458:
>
>> 456: * debug is {@code null},
>> 457: * caller has Policy.getPolicy permission
>> 458: */
>
> Maybe it's not necessary to fix these non-public API cases.
IntelliJ will certainly generate javadoc for non-public cases.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/ProviderException.java line 52:
>
>> 50:
>> 51: /**
>> 52: * Constructs a {@code ProviderException} with the specified detail
>
> String, L43/53. I'm now wondering if we need to describe what detail message
> means at all.
I'm going to keep `{@code String} `since I don't want to go back and change all
occurrences in all files. Documentation changes are too subjective and destroy
the brain.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9282
