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

[Philip Race]

Neither of awt-dev or jdk-dev is the right list for this fix.

Please move the review to 2d-dev.

-phil.

On 8/17/20, 4:50 AM, Lance Andersen wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>