RFR: 'Address reliance on default constructors in the Java 2D APIs'
LANCE.ANDERSEN at ORACLE.COM
Mon Aug 17 11:50:34 UTC 2020
> On Aug 17, 2020, at 7:30 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fuchs at oracle.com> wrote:
> 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.
If the wording is being used elsewhere, then we have a precedent. We should probably discuss at some point do we want to revisit the wording throughout the JDK for consistency.
Thank you for the follow up
> best regards,
> -- daniel
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen at oracle.com
More information about the jdk-dev