RFR[8250855]: 'Address reliance on default constructors in the Java 2D APIs'

[Lance Andersen]

Hi Daniel

> On Aug 17, 2020, at 7:30 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fuchs at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17/08/2020 12:16, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> The description for almost all of the constructors indicate:
>> ————
>> Constructor for subclasses to call
>> ——————
>> Is the above wording used elsewhere in the JDK?  Not sure I like it, I might suggest  a little wordsmithing
> 
> As far as I know that's what Joe Darcy used to document
> public implicit constructors in abstract classes in
> recent similar cleanup patches, see for instance here:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8250244.0/src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/SocketAddress.java.frames.html
> 
> I wouldn't use that description if the class could be instantiated,
> but if it's abstract then we have a precedent...
> Not sure if there is already a different convention for that
> in 2D/AWT code base though.

If the wording is being used elsewhere, then we have a precedent.  We should probably discuss at some point do we want to revisit the wording throughout the JDK for consistency.

Thank you for the follow up
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -- daniel
> 


Best
Lance
------------------




Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen at oracle.com