On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:29:05 GMT, Mikhail Yankelevich 
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Hi!
>> 
>> This is my proposal to transfer `KeyStore` and `KeyStoreSpi` with internal 
>> implementations to use `Instance`s instead of `Date`s. 
>> I would be very grateful for your comments and suggestions.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> P.S. this is related to 
>> [JDK-8350953](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350953)
>
> Mikhail Yankelevich has updated the pull request incrementally with one 
> additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   documentation change and truncated instances to millis

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java line 1210:

> 1208:     /**
> 1209:      * Returns the creation {@code Instant} value
> 1210:      * of the entry identified by the given alias.

I would probably rephrase this as "Returns the instant that the entry 
identified by the given alias was created."
I don't think you need to put instant in code font as other methods that return 
instants do not do that.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java line 1215:

> 1213:      *
> 1214:      * @return the creation instant of this entry, or {@code null} if 
> the given
> 1215:      * alias does not exist

Suggest similar rewording as above, i.e. "the instant that the entry identified 
by the given alias was created, or {@code null} if the given alias does not 
exist"

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStoreSpi.java line 133:

> 131:     /**
> 132:      * Returns the creation {@code Instant} value
> 133:      * of the entry identified by the given alias.

Same comment on the wording as in `KeyStore.getCreationInstant`.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStoreSpi.java line 137:

> 135:      * @implSpec
> 136:      * The default implementation calls {@code 
> engineGetCreationDate(alias)}
> 137:      * and returns the output as an {@code Instant} value.

Suggest you add something like "Subclasses should override this method to 
directly return an instant."

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29140#discussion_r2699898772
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29140#discussion_r2699899247
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29140#discussion_r2699914585
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29140#discussion_r2699913353

Reply via email to