On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 15:44:19 GMT, Yakov Shafranovich <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The various Zip/Jar-file related Java APIs have some long-standing 
>> differences or peculiarities with respect to the ZIP-file specification or 
>> compared to other implementations which should be documented in the API-doc. 
>> This documents the following:
>> - Cache of JAR files in JarURLConnection class
>> - Cache of JAR/ZIP files in JarFile and ZipFile classes
>> - Unexpected behavior when parsing ZIP files with duplicate entries in 
>> JarFile and ZipFile classes, as well as the zipfs provider
>> - Directories and filenames with the same name considered to be the same in 
>> ZipFile class
>> - Possible issues when local and central headers conflict in ZipInputStream 
>> class
>> 
>> Related JBS report:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8319122
>
> Yakov Shafranovich has updated the pull request incrementally with two 
> additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Fixed more line breaks
>  - fixed line breaks

src/jdk.zipfs/share/classes/module-info.java line 310:

> 308:  * considered duplicates, which can result in unexpected behavior such 
> as wrong
> 309:  * metadata or content being returned when parsing archives containing
> 310:  * duplicate names.

The jdk.zipfs module is the JDK's ZIP file system provider, it allows the 
contents of a ZIP or JAR file be treated as a file system. I think what is 
missing from this module description is the mapping of file system concepts to 
ZIP files. If we added a section to the documentation for that then it would be 
a place to document the file separator, normalization, how directories and file 
tree are synthesized, and the limitation that a file system cannot be 
constructed when it leads to have several entries in a directory having equal 
names. There's a lot more that could be added but hopefully you can see that an 
implNote and warnings just doesn't work as a way to present the mapping.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16424#discussion_r1390232094

Reply via email to