RFR: 8254935: Deprecate the PSSParameterSpec(int) constructor [v7]

[Sean Mullan]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:18:20 GMT, Valerie Peng <valeriep at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Can someone help review this update to the PSSParameterSpec class regarding the constructor with int argument and the DEFAULT static field? Just added @Deprecate javadoc tag and caution about their usage as suggested in the bug record.
>> 
>> A CSR will be filed once the wording changes are reviewed.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>
> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Update again with Sean's wording suggestion.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 98:

> 96: 
> 97:     /**
> 98:      * The PSS parameter set with all default values

Nit - add period at end of sentence.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 106:

> 104:      *         a new {@code PSSParameterSpec} with the desired parameter values
> 105:      *         using
> 106:      *         {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String, AlgorithmParameterSpec, int, int) PSSParameterSpec}.

I think it would be more clear to see the full signature of the ctor that you are recommending be used instead, so I would change these 2 lines to:

`using the {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String, AlgorithmParameterSpec, int, int)} constructor.`

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/spec/PSSParameterSpec.java line 175:

> 173:      *         standard for more details. Thus, it is recommended to explicitly
> 174:      *         specify all desired parameter values with
> 175:      *         {@link #PSSParameterSpec(String, String, AlgorithmParameterSpec, int, int) PSSParameterSpec}.

Same comment about seeing the full signature of the ctor as mentioned above.

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7913