On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 17:28:28 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address 
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8385924?
>> 
>> For reasons explained in that issue, the `java.util.zip.GZIPInputStream` 
>> class currently behaves differently depending on which version of Java is in 
>> use. The change in this current PR proposes to introduce a system property 
>> which allows applications to decide whether they prefer the decades old 
>> behaviour of `GZIPInputStream` where it uses `InputStream.available()` for 
>> deciding whether to read a subsequent member in the stream, or whether the 
>> application prefers the more recent behaviour of `GZIPInputStream` where it 
>> skips the `available()` call and instead directly does a read operation for 
>> detecting a subsequent member.
>> 
>> The system property by default isn't set which means that `GZIPInputStream` 
>> will call `InputStream.available()` and thus matches its decades old 
>> behaviour. The introduction of this system property is a stopgap measure as 
>> noted in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/30925#discussion_r3318466104 :
>> 
>>> For JDK 27, introduce a system property that controls the reliable handling 
>>> of streams with more than one member. Long standing behavior does not 
>>> handle the case where the underlying stream doesn't have a useful 
>>> avaialble() method and it additionally swallows any exception when reading 
>>> ahead. The system property can be documented as an implNote in the 2-arg 
>>> constructor or class description. The property will need default to long 
>>> standing behavior (not the more recent/changed behavior).
>> 
>> As noted in that same comment, the long term solution involves enhancing the 
>> `GZIPInputStream` class to introduce a constructor which allows applications 
>> to decide how the `GZIPInputStream` should behave when dealing with multiple 
>> members:
>> 
>>> For JDK 28 or later, introduce a new constructor to create a 
>>> GZIPInputStream that works like it should have done in JDK 1.1 when the API 
>>> was originally introduced. We discussed two possible sets of parameters. We 
>>> also discussed maybe deprecating the two existing constructors due to the 
>>> issue of treating available==0 as EOF and the issue of swallowing 
>>> exceptions. 
>> 
>> That new API will need careful thought and time and thus the current 
>> proposal to introduce this system property in the meantime.
>> 
>> A new jtreg test has been introduced to verify the usage of this system 
>> property. A CSR will be proposed shortly. Existing tests and this new test 
>> continue to pass with this change.
>> 
>> ---------...
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/GZIPInputStream.java line 69:
> 
>> 67:  * is performed on the underlying stream for a subsequent member. By 
>> default,
>> 68:  * the {@code jdk.util.gzip.tryReadAheadAfterTrailer} system property is 
>> unset, and
>> 69:  * {@code InputStream.available()} gets called.
> 
> The implNote will likely move to the 2-arg constructor when a new constructor 
> is proposed.
> 
> I think your wording is quite good. A suggestion is to replace
> 
> "and a read is performed on the underlying stream for a subsequent member." 
> 
> with
> 
> "and the implementation instead attempts to read a subsequent member in the 
> stream. It may be necessary to set this property in environments that process 
> streams with a series of members."
> 
> When the new constructor arrives then it will be possible to update the 
> guidance.

I can live with this proposal, although I'd still prefer to make the actual 
issue a little bit more explicit, e.g.:

"and the implementation instead attempts to read a subsequent member in the 
stream. It may be necessary to set this property in environments that need to 
reliably process streams with a series of members, independently on the 
underlying input stream's implementation of `available()`."

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31396#discussion_r3375289917

Reply via email to