On Fri, 29 May 2026 09:33:58 GMT, Volker Simonis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> See the notes above about next steps which will propose a new constructor >>> and maybe deprecate the existing constructors. >> >> Yes, sure, I'm fine with those >> >> My concern was more about any system property and that they should be simple >> switches which picks the default mode. They should not hold independent >> semantics which needs to be documented in other terms than the modes >> documented in the API. Any system property introduced now should account for >> the modes/constructors we want to introduce later. They will co-exist for a >> long time. >> >> Maybe this is just a given and my comment here is superfluous. My concern >> was usability and future users having to understand two different ways of >> controlling behavior and resolve any conflicts between them. >> >> I think I'm happy if we avoid introducing a system propery now which later >> proves difficult to define in terms of behavior specified by the new >> constructors / APIs . > > My understanding is that we only need the system property for JDK 27 and > earlier releases. Once we come up with a real fix which will probably contain > API changes which can't be backported, the system property wouldn't be > required any more and deprecated/removed as well. > The plan is to reintroduce the change that was done for JDK-7036144 and > enable that new behaviour only when the new system property is enabled. When > that system property isn't set (or disabled), which would be the default > case, then the implementation will continue with the long standing behaviour > of using InputStream.available(). @jaikiran, is my understanding correct that by "reintroduce the change that was done for JDK-7036144" you implicitly also mean to reintroduce the fix [JDK-8374644](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8374644) for the performance regression introduced by [JDK-7036144](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7036144)? If yes, then I think this is a good idea and agree to the plan. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30925#discussion_r3323485540
