On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:26:56 GMT, Lance Andersen <lan...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Hello Volker, An additional thing that we might have to consider here is
>>> whether adding this javadoc change to `InflaterInputStream` is ever going
>>> to "show up" to end user applications. What I mean is, I think in many
>>> cases the end user applications won't even know they are dealing with an
>>> `InflaterInputStream`. For example, the following code:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> ZipFile zf = ...
>>> ZipEntry ze = zf.getEntry("some-file");
>>> InputStream is = zf.getInputStream(ze);
>>> ```
>>>
>>> As we see above, none of these APIs talk about `InflaterInputStream` (the
>>> return type of `ZipFile.getInpustream(...)` is an `InputStream`). So end
>>> users won't be able to view this spec change. Perhaps we should also add
>>> some note in the `ZipFile.getInpustream(....)` API to make a mention of
>>> this potential difference in behaviour of the returned stream?
>>
>> You are right with your observation and I'll be happy to add a corresponding
>> comment if @LanceAndersen and @AlanBateman agree. Please let me know what
>> you think?
>
>> > Hello Volker, An additional thing that we might have to consider here is
>> > whether adding this javadoc change to `InflaterInputStream` is ever going
>> > to "show up" to end user applications. What I mean is, I think in many
>> > cases the end user applications won't even know they are dealing with an
>> > `InflaterInputStream`. For example, the following code:
>> > ```
>> > ZipFile zf = ...
>> > ZipEntry ze = zf.getEntry("some-file");
>> > InputStream is = zf.getInputStream(ze);
>> > ```
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As we see above, none of these APIs talk about `InflaterInputStream` (the
>> > return type of `ZipFile.getInpustream(...)` is an `InputStream`). So end
>> > users won't be able to view this spec change. Perhaps we should also add
>> > some note in the `ZipFile.getInpustream(....)` API to make a mention of
>> > this potential difference in behaviour of the returned stream?
>>
>> You are right with your observation and I'll be happy to add a corresponding
>> comment if @LanceAndersen and @AlanBateman agree. Please let me know what
>> you think?
>
> Hi Volker,
>
> I believe Jai raises a valid point given these javadocs probably have had
> limited updates if any since the API was originally added. We should look
> at ZipInputStream and GZipInputStream as well if we decide to update the
> ZipFile::getInputStream(where we could borrow some wording from the
> ZipInputStream class description as a start to some word smithing).
>
> As Roger points out we will need a release note for this change as well.
> @LanceAndersen, @AlanBateman can you please comment on the
> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8283758) for this issue. We
> now circled back to the initial proposal in the
> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8283758) but @jddarcy would
> like to hear your opinion.
Have not forgotten about this. I think we are not quite there on the changes
to` Inputstream` but have not had a chance to give it some more thought.
Apologies and thank you for your patience
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7986
