On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 02:39 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote:
http://www.javaworld.com/jw-10-1997/jw-10-sunsuit.html
Interesting article, especially this one:
And while Sun can exercise its legal rights over the use of the Java name, it
can do little to stop Microsoft from implementing a clean
PM
To: John Leuner
Cc: classpath-patches@gnu.org; Christian Schlichtherle
Subject: Re: Patches to java.util.zip by Christian Schlichtherle
Hi (moved to classpath-patches)
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 18:02 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I need to go through the rest of these patches.
It would
PM
To: John Leuner
Cc: classpath-patches@gnu.org; Christian Schlichtherle
Subject: Re: Patches to java.util.zip by Christian Schlichtherle
Hi (moved to classpath-patches)
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 18:02 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I need to go through the rest of these patches.
It would
Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
the changes from int to long are required as to the ZIP file format
specification available online from PKZIP Inc.
The specification says that all integers are 4 byte unsigned integers.
Java's int type is 4 byte signed, thus the type long is
required to hold
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 12:06 +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
the changes from int to long are required as to the ZIP file format
specification available online from PKZIP Inc.
The specification says that all integers are 4 byte unsigned integers.
Java's
Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
Unfortunately, we cannot add additional public constructors,
but I would suggest adding a system property to control the
encoding used by our zip implementation. By default we should
be compatible with the JDK, but this would allow applications
and/or
Hi everyone,
Unfortunately, we cannot add additional public constructors,
but I would suggest adding a system property to control the
encoding used by our zip implementation. By default we should
be compatible with the JDK, but this would allow applications
and/or users to override the
Hi everyone,
Yes, if someone can make a little testcase where we fail now
and show how we are not properly converting the
signed/unsigned ints at the moment that would be appreciated.
Note that at the moment all public methods take and return
longs already, we only store it as int
Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
More specifically, the size and compressed size field in the ZipEntry class
are causing the problems as some comparisons are happening on these. The
issue is that once a big integer equal or greater than 2*1024^3 and smaller
than 4*1024^3 is stored into a Java int,
Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
For my personal education: What's wrong about adding constructors?
It is a violation of the Sun license included with the API specification
-- you could argue about whether the license is valid or not, but that's
not the point, and
Hi Christian,
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 14:05 +0200, Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
For my personal education: What's wrong about adding constructors? The
result would still be backward compatible to the JDK source, so I think this
would make up a good solution. This is also what people have often
on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Christian Schlichtherle wrote:
More specifically, the size and compressed size field in the ZipEntry
class
are causing the problems as some comparisons are happening on these.
The
issue is that once a big integer equal or greater than 2*1024^3 and
smaller
than 4*1024^3
Stephen Crawley wrote:
Let us not beat about the bush. It would be bad for everyone (except
Microsoft)
if Java implementors were allowed to modify the APIs of the Java Class
Libraries.
If you are a Java(TM) licensee, I think you can modify the APIs through
the respective JSRs at the JCP.
Mark Wielaard wrote:
But even then for a core class library implementation being
conservative about extensions is a good thing. If you aren't careful you
have to support a new way to use the library for years and then you will
have to make really sure that it is worth it both for your users and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://www.javaworld.com/jw-10-1997/jw-10-sunsuit.html
Interesting article, especially this one:
And while Sun can exercise its legal rights over the use of the Java name, it
can do little to stop Microsoft from implementing a clean room version of
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 12:29 +0700, John Leuner wrote:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to give this task the attention it
deserves and I want to give someone else the opportunity to deal with
these patches.
Below are some of the emails exchanged between Christian, Mark Wielaard
and
16 matches
Mail list logo
