On 30/Nov/2009 16:54, Jesse Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The method JarFile#getInputStream(ZipEntry) is spec'd to return an >> InputStream, not a ZipInputStream. >> >> Furthermore, as I showed, the RI returns a stream that answers with >> available() > 1, i.e. it follows the InputStream spec. > > Yup. And if we want to do likewise, we should change he *runtime* type of > the returned stream so that it isn't a subtype of ZipInputStream.
Right, if you see my patch on HARMONY-6394 I have defined it as ZipInflaterInputStream extends InflaterInputStream (extends FilterInputStream extends InputStream extends Object). >> We should follow the spec and RI behavior. While we have only got >> examples of our own code making the assumption on available() [1] I >> expect that there will be third-party applications making the same >> assumptions. > > You're right. Sadly this bogus pattern is quite common. > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&start=10&sa=N&q=new > \+byte\[\w%2B\.available\(\)\]+file:\.java :-( Regards, Tim
