RFR: 8377506: Implementation of PEM Encodings of Cryptographic Objects (Final)

[Anthony Scarpino]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 09:00:52 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I am sorry for this situation, but I can't say when or if we will be able to do something about this.
>> 
>> Currently, keeping the constant for one more release is always safe; removing it may be OK, but it is difficult to determine whether the missing constant will cause problems of not. It is only if the interim javac would touch a classfile that uses the constant, but it is not easy to say whether that will be the case. (And, IIRC, we've had a situation in the past that we had to re-introduce a constant, because it was needed in some specific circumstances.)
>> 
>> I'll think again of ways to avoid the need to keep the constants.
>
>> I am sorry for this situation, but I can't say when or if we will be able to do something about this.
> 
> No need to be sorry, you've always been very helpful and patient on this matter.
> 
> @ascarpino I assume you'll update the PR to leave the constant in place. You can probably drop the core-libs and compiler labels from the PR if you want to keep the review on security-dev.

To be sure, I need to leave `PEM_API`, but I can remove the `@JEP` line, correct?

@AlanBateman will do.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r2824069480