On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:51:48 GMT, Lance Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Another (more conservative) possibility is to preserve both 1 ("Trailing
>> garbage is ignored") and 3 ("Concatenated streams are automatically
>> decoded") in the default configuration.
>>
>> Then basically all we would be changing is no longer suppressing
>> `IOException`'s.
>>
>> And then - as a separate remaining question - if we wanted to also provide
>> more control there could be new constructor(s) to control concatenation
>> and/or tolerance for trailing garbage.
>>
>> (In all cases, I think using `mark()`/`reset()` (when available) to make
>> trailing garbage detection precise is a good idea.)
>
>> Another (more conservative) possibility is to preserve both 1 ("Trailing
>> garbage is ignored") and 3 ("Concatenated streams are automatically
>> decoded") in the default configuration.
>>
>> Then basically all we would be changing is no longer suppressing
>> `IOException`'s.
>>
>> And then - as a separate remaining question - if we wanted to also provide
>> more control there could be new constructor(s) to control concatenation
>> and/or tolerance for trailing garbage.
>>
>> (In all cases, I think using `mark()`/`reset()` (when available) to make
>> trailing garbage detection precise is a good idea.)
>
> We don't want to change this long standing behavior as it has the potential
> of breaking existing applications and it is consistent with gzip and also
> winzip.
>
> So through this PR, we should clarify the javadoc as to what current
> GZIPInputStream implementation does and add additional tests to expand the
> coverage
>
> A separate discussion can take place to discuss the merits of whether there
> is perceived value in throwing an IOException when trailing garbage is
> encountered as well as any benefit of not supporting concatenated gzip files.
> It will also allow time for further review of other tools/apis that support
> gzip to see what they may or may not do.
> @LanceAndersen & @jaikiran,
>
> When you get a chance please review the
> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8330195) and let me know if you
> think the new wording is appropriate.
>
> Thanks.
It's on my list and I hope to get to it this week if not early next. apologies
for the delay, it has been a busy time with trying to wrap up some high
priority items
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18385#issuecomment-2302862254
