That's what it was, but as Alan pointed out, it is potential misleading to people who knows detail about zip file.
I think the ordering is an implementation detail, and based on zip file spec, I would assume it's the order as in central directory. I didn't dig down to the native code to confirm what ordering have been implemented, so my confidence level is at most be par with Paul. :) Cheers, Henry On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > In practice, the order of entries in the central directory is always the > same as the order of actual entries, although in theory they might be > different. I think it would be useful to say that the entries are returned > in the order that they are stored in the zip file, and leave the central > directory order subtlety out of it. > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com>wrote: > >> On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Henry Jen <henry....@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> Point taken. >>> >>> It seems to me we should at least keep the ORDERED characterristic for >> the returned stream, but not necessarily need to specify what order it is, >> which would be inline with entries(). >>> >>> Does that make sense? >>> >>> I'll add back the ORDERED flag but keep the javadoc not mention ordering. >>> >> >> Is there any reason why we cannot mention the order is the same as the >> order declared in the central directory? >> >> Or is that considered an implementation detail? If so it seems like a >> feature to me we should call out. However, I don't really know much about >> the zip implementation to say much with confidence on this matter. >> >> Paul. >> >>> Cheers, >>> Henry >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Henry Jen <henry....@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So if possible we should report ORDERED and state the association, if >> any, of encounter order with the order declared in the central directory, >> which i hope is, and seems to be, the same. (Plus update the docs of >> entries() too.) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you entries() and streams() should be in sync on >> ordering. Spec-wise, I have no clear preference. >>>> >>>>> But when I looked into a zip file archive, I always would like to see >> entries in alphabetic order so I can find the files I really care, which >> will also have directory structure nicely. Order in central directory not >> necessary helping me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you do the following what entry do you think should be returned? >>>> >>>> zipfile.entries().nextElement(); >>>> >>>> zipfile.stream().findFirst(); >>>> >>>> zipfile.stream().parallel().findFirst(); >>>> >>>> I would expect all entries to be equal and to be the first entry in the >> central directory. I would not expect the latter to be non-deterministic >> [*]. >>>> >>>> Or what about the following: >>>> >>>> List l = new ArrayList(); Enumeration e = zip file.entries(); >>>> for(int i = 0; i < 10 & e.hasMoreElements(); i++) >> l.add(e.nextElement()); >>>> List ss = zipfile.entries().limit(10).collect(toList()); >>>> List sp = zipfile.entries().parallel().limit(10).collect(toList()); >>>> >>>> Should those lists be equal? Again i would expect so. >>>> >>>> There does appear to be a well-defined encounter order. I don't think >> most developers will consider the collection of zip entries to behave like >> a Set. It is more list-like. >>>> >>>> Paul. >>>> >>>> [*] Note that our current implementation is deterministic, but that is >> because we don't currently check when doing a find first if the stream has >> no order and then defer to find any, which is a minor optimization we can >> enable. >>> >> >>
