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

Daniel Fuchs daniel.fuchs at oracle.com
Mon Aug 17 11:30:34 UTC 2020

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:


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.

best regards,

-- daniel

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list