On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:59:08 GMT, Eirik Bjørsnøs <eir...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this PR which proposes that we officially deprecate the
>> following four methods in the `java.util.zip` package:
>>
>> * `Inflater.getTotalIn()`
>> * `Inflater.getTotalOut()`
>> * `Deflater.getTotalIn()`
>> * `Deflater.getTotalOut()`
>>
>> Since these legacy methods return `int`, they cannot safely return the
>> number of bytes processed without the risk of losing information about the
>> magnitude or even sign of the returned value.
>>
>> The corresponding methods `getBytesRead()` and `getBytesWritten()` methods
>> introduced in Java 5 return `long`, and should be used instead when
>> obtaining this information.
>>
>> Unrelated to the deprecation itself, the documentation currently does not
>> specify what these methods are expected to return when the number of
>> processed bytes is higher than `Integer.MAX_VALUE`. This PR aims to clarify
>> this in the API specification.
>>
>> Initally, this PR handles only `Inflater.getTotalIn()`. The other three
>> methods will be updated once the wordsmithing for this method stabilizes.
>
> Eirik Bjørsnøs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Reduce the deprecation note to "Use {@link #getBytesRead()} instead"
After some offline discussion about the redundant text, we decided to keep to
the new method description text, but reduce the `@deprecated` note to simply
refer to the replacement method:
/**
* Returns the total number of compressed bytes input so far.
* <p>
* This method returns the equivalent of {@code (int) getBytesRead()}
* and therefore cannot return the correct value when it is greater
* than {@link Integer#MAX_VALUE}.
*
* @deprecated Use {@link #getBytesRead()} instead
*
* @return the total number of compressed bytes input so far
*/
Barring any objections, I'll to go ahead with the update of the rest of the
methods and update the CSR draft tomorrow.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17919#issuecomment-1967498161
