RFR: 8209038: Clarify the javadoc of Cipher.getParameters()

Sean Mullan mullan at openjdk.java.net
Mon Apr 11 15:45:49 UTC 2022


On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 00:14:04 GMT, Valerie Peng <valeriep at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Anyone can help review this javadoc update? The main change is the wording for the method javadoc of Cipher.getParameters()/CipherSpi.engineGetParameters(). The original wording is somewhat restrictive and request is to broaden this to accommodate more scenarios such as when null can be returned.
> The rest are minor things like add {@code } to class name and null, and remove redundant ".". 
> 
> Will file CSR after the review is close to being wrapped up.
> Thanks~

src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 488:

> 486:      * A new {@code Cipher} object encapsulating the
> 487:      * {@code CipherSpi} implementation from the first
> 488:      * Provider that supports the specified algorithm is returned.

Since "Provider" is capitalized, I think the intent was that this was the classname, so it should also probably be in an `@code` tag. Alternatively, you could change this to non-capitalized "provider" (w/o the @code tag) and I think it would still be readable (and my vote would be for this).

src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 655:

> 653:      *
> 654:      * <p> A new {@code Cipher} object encapsulating the
> 655:      * {@code CipherSpi} implementation from the specified Provider

Since `Provider` here is a parameter, it is probably better to put this in an `@code` tag.

src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/Cipher.java line 2641:

> 2639:      *
> 2640:      * @param transformation the cipher transformation
> 2641:      * @return the maximum key length in bits or Integer.MAX_VALUE

Integer.MAX_VALUE should be inside a `@code` tag.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8117


More information about the security-dev mailing list