On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:04:35 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Kevin Driver 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 16 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - update test to include Spi updates >> - Update with latest from master >> >> Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into kdf-jep-wip >> # Please enter a commit message to explain why this merge is necessary, >> # especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic branch. >> # >> # Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts >> # the commit. >> - add engineGetKDFParameters to the KDFSpi >> - code review comment fix for javadoc specification >> - change course on null return values from derive methods >> - code review comments >> - threading refactor + code review comments >> - review comments >> - review comments >> - update code snippet type in KDF >> - ... and 6 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/02778490...dd2ee48f > > src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/KDF.java line 413: > >> 411: * algorithm >> 412: * @throws InvalidAlgorithmParameterException >> 413: * if the {@code KDFParameters} is an invalid value > > I don't think "invalid value" is right here, that sound more like it is not > an object and has a value. Changing it to "if the {@code KDFParameters} are > invalid" would be sufficient, but I think the text should be consistent, so > in that case it should be "if the {@code KDFParameters} are inappropriate > for this {@code KDF}." (that is the wording you use in the `KDFSpi` ctor). > > Same comment for all methods in `KDF` that take `KDFParameters`. @seanjmullan: Addressed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20301/commits/59a3f02015f7fc3ad81ca29b90d83b1c9bd70fc5. Please resolve this conversation if satisfied. > src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/KDF.java line 458: > >> 456: * @param alg >> 457: * the algorithm of the resultant {@code SecretKey} object >> 458: * @param kdfParameterSpec > > I think this parameter should be renamed to `derivationParameterSpec` (or > something similar) to avoid confusion with the `kdfParameterSpec` variable > passed to `getInstance`. @seanjmullan: Addressed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20301/commits/59a3f02015f7fc3ad81ca29b90d83b1c9bd70fc5. Please resolve this conversation if satisfied. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20301#discussion_r1715489121 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20301#discussion_r1715488022
