Hi Alan, I've got a new iteration for the zipfs POSIX support and addressed your concerns: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8213031.9/
The new change bases on the proposal for JDK-8222276, which I created to factor out changes unrelated to POSIX to facilitate easier reviewing of this patch. In details: > One thing that is puzzling is that > ZipFileAttributeView/ZipFileAttributes extend > PosixFileAttributeView/PosixFileAttributes. I don't think that will work > because the "zip" view is supported by default whereas "posix" view > needs the file system to be created with enablePosixFileAttributes=true. I separated ZipFileAttributeView and ZipFileAttributeViewPosix. I also created a class EntryPosix inside ZipFileSystem.java that extends the default Entry class and additionally implements PosixFileAttributes. It is used, depending on whether Posix support is turned on or not. I unfortunately had to touch all the places where new Entry objects are created and either create a Posix entry or a default Entry. > I saw your comment about naming the file permissions attribute > "storedPermissions" in the zip view but if the zip and posix view are > separated then I think it would be clearer to name it "permissions" in > the zip view. If code is using Files.getAttribute then it will need the > view name so they won't get mixed up. It's always "permissions" now. In case, it is a default ZipFileSystem, the attribute is optional. If supportPosix is true, it'll always be available using default values. > You asked about the fallback when defaultOwner/defaultGroup aren't set. > If getOwner fails with an IOException then I think that exception should > be propagated. The UOE case will fallback to the value of "user.name". I > think the fallback for the group owner should be the file owner rather > than " > "<zipfs_default>". The default.policy file will need to be updated to > grant jdk.zipfs RuntimePermission("accessUserInfo") so that you won't > need to deal with security exceptions. Ok, done that 😊 > As regards next steps then I think we need to agree the spec changes, as > in the the javadoc in module-info.java. Once we have the spec agreed > then the CSR can be updated and finalized. The code review can be done > in parallel of course. I think Lance is going to help review the changes. I have updated module-info a little bit to reflect the latest changes. Is it now time to focus on the CSR? Thanks Christoph