RFR: 8167005: Comment on the need for an empty constructor in ArrayList$Itr
stuart.marks at oracle.com
Wed Oct 5 00:57:23 UTC 2016
Right, the main point of the comment is to tell the reader the constructor isn't
superfluous, to prevent it from being cleaned up and accidentally causing a
regression. Full history can reside in the commit comment, the bug database, and
in these email logs.
I'd put in a link to a bug only when there's some action on this code associated
with that bug, e.g., "don't remove this code until bug XXXXXXX has been fixed."
On 10/4/16 5:00 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> the aim isn't to add an in-depth explanation to the code about exactly
> the circumstance that led to this constructor and comment being added,
> but to put a clear message that it was simply, in fact, deliberate, so
> even the proposed comment might be going further than strictly necessary.
> I'm also not convinced of the value of putting explicit links to the
> bug actually pushed, since there's an implicit link in the commit
> itself anyhow.
> On 2016-10-04 23:20, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote:
>> The explanation which Stuart gives for this change in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 seems to describe why
>> this constructor is needed much better than the comment itself does. So
>> I wonder if it's worth adding the link to the bug report in the comment.
>> // prevent generation of synthetic class required for access to private
>> // constructor. See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005
>> Kind regards,
>> On 4 October 2016 at 21:28, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com
>> <mailto:stuart.marks at oracle.com>> wrote:
>> On 10/4/16 3:55 AM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> Thanks for the speedy review! :-)
>> Thanks for looking at this. The shorter text in the bug report is ok
More information about the core-libs-dev