<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Eirik,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/24 2:26 am, Eirik Bjørsnøs
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+pBWhvJ1=r71GfkPHRcOcsCLhXuw=wxfB9YGZgoYOxwcVgrtw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 2:22 PM Eirik Bjørsnøs <<a
href="mailto:eirbjo@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">eirbjo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In addition to simply adding the final modifier, the
CSR suggests minor updates to the classes
DynamicCallSiteDesc, ModuleDescriptor and
InterfaceAddress to better express them being
non-subclassable. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The changes to make the InterfaceAddress constructor
private has been removed from this CSR since it was not
considered a specification idea.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It could still be good to consider whether this
constructor can be made private and its comment block
updated to mention that the constructor is only accessed via
native code, not Java.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I filed <a
href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345074"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345074</a>
to track this. Feedback from someone in the network area is
welcome.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I had a look at this and like you note, the InterfaceAddress only
gets constructed through the JNI functions in NetworkInterface's
code. So I think it should be OK to me make this constructor
private.</p>
<p>-Jaikiran<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>