JDK-8322979 : Add informative discussion to Modifier
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: core-libs
  • Sub-Component: java.lang:reflect
  • Affected Version: 23
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Submitted: 2024-01-03
  • Updated: 2024-08-22
  • Resolved: 2024-01-12
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
JDK 23
23 b06Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
JDK-8322878 - Including sealing information Class.toGenericString()
Description
The class-level discussion of java.lang.reflect.Modifier would be improved by noting the relation to and differences from java.lang.reflect.AccessFlag.

Additionally, since Modifier.toString(int) gives a canonical ordering for the modifiers, a note could be added on where sealed/non-sealed should occur in such a list, even though sealed/non-sealed are _not_ implemented as modifiers in class files.
Comments
A pull request was submitted for review. Branch: master URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17338 Date: 2024-01-10 06:00:18 +0000
22-08-2024
Changeset: 9e9c05f0 Author: Joe Darcy <darcy@openjdk.org> Date: 2024-01-12 19:40:55 +0000 URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/9e9c05f0eee7c3ecc750c212e6fe5edddb8c6ed8
12-01-2024
Does it also make sense to add a note on absent in a class file but computable/deducible `default` (java.lang.reflect.Method#isDefault)?
04-01-2024