RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Max,

Comments:

  - Is there a better term/phrase to use other than "foo"; it does not 
appear elsewhere in the @implNote.
    The use of "cpath" and "npath" implies that someone is reading the 
source code.
    The description of the behavior of the implementation should use the 
same terminology as the spec.

  - The use of "Note" weakens the text as specification language.  It 
can be omitted.

  - To make the source version more readable, I would keep each 
statement on its own line.

     Note that this means "/-" does not imply "foo".
     An invalid {@code FilePermission} does not imply any object except for itself.

Thanks, Roger

On 12/20/2016 2:25 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
> Ping again.
>
>> On Dec 14, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Wang Weijun <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> An clarification is added to FilePermission::implies:
>>
>>       * @implNote
>>         ....
>>       * a simple {@code npath} is recursively inside a wildcard {@code npath}
>>       * if and only if {@code simple_npath.relativize(wildcard_npath)}
>> -     * is a series of one or more "..". An invalid {@code FilePermission} does
>> +     * is a series of one or more "..". Note that this means "/-" does not
>> +     * imply "foo". An invalid {@code FilePermission} does
>>       * not imply any object except for itself.
>>
>> The newly added sentence is
>>
>>   Note that this means "/-" does not imply "foo".
>>
>> JCK has agreed to update their test.
>>
>> Since this is just a clarification inside an @implNote and no spec is updated, I suppose no CCC is needed. Please confirm.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>