[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: JDK 16 RFR of JDK-8250640: Address reliance on default constructors in jdk.jdi
From:       "serguei.spitsyn () oracle ! com" <serguei ! spitsyn () oracle ! com>
Date:       2020-07-31 8:06:54
Message-ID: 791eba28-5113-3eef-b7ff-a4d5258d2d59 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Joe,

It looks good to me.

Thanks,
Serguei


On 7/27/20 23:45, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>
> On 27/07/2020 21:42, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Another module, another set of default constructors to replace with 
>> explicit ones. Please review the code changes and CSR to address:
>>
>>     JDK-8250640: Address reliance on default constructors in jdk.jdi
>>     webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8250640.0/
>>     CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250642
>>
>> Patch below; I'll update copyrights before pushing. In the Bootstrap 
>> class, since it doesn't define any non-static methods, it looks like 
>> it doesn't need a constructor in its API at all so I terminally 
>> deprecated the constructor.
> Right, Bootstrap should have a public constructor. Ideally the 
> abstract classes in the spi package would have a protected constructor.
>
> The change looks okay to me.
>
> -Alan

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]