On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 19:04:50 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/ZipOutputStream.java line 151:
>>
>>> 149: * comment is greater than 0xFFFF bytes or if the
>>> {@code comment}
>>> 150: * contains characters that cannot be mapped by the
>>> {@code Charset}
>>> 151: * used to encode entry names and comments
>>
>> This is OK but perhaps we can tune further as mentioning "entry names" does
>> not quite feel right in the setComments javadoc
>>
>> Would it be beneficial to clarify the charset used in the class description?
>
>> This is OK but perhaps we can tune further as mentioning "entry names" does
>> not quite feel right in the setComments javadoc
>>
>> Would it be beneficial to clarify the charset used in the class description?
>
> Probably yes. But I feel the scope of this PR has already been creeping and I
> don't feel comfortable adding another "and .." to this PR's title.
>
> Would it be okay to handle the Charset clarification in the class description
> as a separate task?
I feel it can be handled within this PR as we really only need to indicate
that UTF-8 is the default charset and` ZipOutputStream(OutputStream, CharSet)
` may be used to specify an alternative charset
Let's see what Alan/Jai have for a preference.
Worst case, a PR for the clarifying the charset within the class description
could be addressed 1st.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30338#discussion_r3047396674
