On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:16 PM Alan Bateman
wrote:
> This is a JDK 1.1 era mistake. It would a source incompatible change to
> "remove" the constants. It would require corpus searches to gauge the
> impact.
Alan,
I've tried to assess the impact by using Github's Code Search. As far as I
can
>
> But keeping this "peculiarity" afloat does not come for free either.
>
Let me add that keeping the constants also incurs a maintenance cost: The
fact that these constants are "effectively and accidentally public" is
unusual, but needs to be understood and enforced by maintainers. Their
names,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:16 PM Alan Bateman
wrote:
> > In light of this, I would like to revisit this issue, 22 years later:
> [...]
>
> This is a JDK 1.1 era mistake. It would a source incompatible change to
> "remove" the constants. It would require corpus searches to gauge the
> impact. I
I agree, I am not sure there is a large benefit to changing this at this time.
Seems a lot of effort for minimal gain at best.
On Nov 28, 2023, at 12:15 PM, Alan Bateman
mailto:alan.bate...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On 28/11/2023 15:50, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
:
In light of this, I would like to
On 28/11/2023 15:50, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
:
In light of this, I would like to revisit this issue, 22 years later:
- Is my assessment that this change is actually not binary
incompatible sound, or did I miss something?
- Would it in any case make sense to mark ZipConstants as @Deprecated,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:38 AM Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM David Lloyd
> wrote:
>
>> I agree, I always thought that this was a bizarre thing to expose in a
>> public API so it being accidental does explain things. But maybe the
>> appropriate fix is even
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM David Lloyd wrote:
> I agree, I always thought that this was a bizarre thing to expose in a
> public API so it being accidental does explain things. But maybe the
> appropriate fix is even simpler now in these modern times: one could remove
> the `implements` and
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:01 AM Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> JDK-4512189 [1] raised the issue that ZipFile, ZipEntry, ZipInputStream
> and ZipOutputStream all implement the non-public ZipConstants interface.
> While the interface itself is non-public, the constants defined
> unfortunately
Hi,
JDK-4512189 [1] raised the issue that ZipFile, ZipEntry, ZipInputStream and
ZipOutputStream all implement the non-public ZipConstants interface. While
the interface itself is non-public, the constants defined unfortunately
leak into the public API as constants of the mentioned classes. This
