On Thu, 16 May 2024 19:53:48 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> IllegalArgumentException throws doc update
>
> src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnection.java
> line 959:
>
>> 957: * <code>NotificationFilters</code>. Elements of this array can
>> 958: * be null.
>> 959: * @param delegationSubjects should be {@code null}, but a non-null
>
> Would it be more clear to say: "should be {@code null}. However, an array
> where every entry is null is also accepted for compatibility reasons."
Yes, I like adding the "also".
> src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnection.java
> line 960:
>
>> 958: * be null.
>> 959: * @param delegationSubjects should be {@code null}, but a non-null
>> 960: * array is accepted for compatibilty reasons, which must not
>> contain
>
> Typo: s/compatibilty/compatibility/
oops yes thanks, done.
> src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnection.java
> line 969:
>
>> 967: * @throws IllegalArgumentException if <code>names</code> or
>> 968: * <code>filters</code> is null, or if <code>names</code> contains
>> 969: * a null element, or if these two arrays do not have the same size.
>
> Was this actually an oversight in the previous change to remove subject
> delegation? When `delegationSubjects` is null, then the 3 arrays are never
> going to be the same size.
Yes, this is an oversight from the previous change.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19253#discussion_r1603976969
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19253#discussion_r1603974595
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19253#discussion_r1603975797
